Twin City Trails of Journey LLC
211 Mathis Avenue, Twin City, GA 30471 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 110 certified beds · (478) 763-2141 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.8% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 41.2% | 11.3% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.1% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.9% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.5% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 48.1% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 47.6% | 78.4% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 25.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.6% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.50 | 2.15 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.96 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 27.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 22 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.2–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 27.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 31.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 31.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 3.8–14.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.27 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 110 beds and averages 84.7 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 25 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.63 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.71 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.82 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled ABUSE, NEGELECT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse for one of 16 sampled residents (R) (R3). Specifically, R13 pushed R3, causing a fall. This deficient practice had the potential to place R3 at increased risk of injury related to being pushed. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled ABUSE, NEGELCT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, reviewed 03/05/2024, documented Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident.that prohibit and prevent abuse. In addition, documented Definitions: 'Abuse' means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations. and .'Physical Abuse' includes, but is not limited to hitting,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled ABUSE, NEGELECT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, the facility failed to report a resident-to-resident physical altercation to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within the required timeframe for two of 16 sampled residents (R) (R3 and R13). Specifically, R3 fell as a result of being pushed by R13. This deficient practice had the potential to increase the risk of other potential abuse not being reported. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled ABUSE, NEGELCT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, reviewed 03/05/2024, documented Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident.that prohibit and prevent abuse. In addition, documented Definitions: 'Abuse' means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled ABUSE, NEGELECT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a physical altercation between two of 16 sampled residents (R) (R3 and R13). Specifically, R13 pushed R3, causing a fall. This deficient practice had the potential to increase the risk for abuse to continue. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled ABUSE, NEGELCT, [sic] AND EXPLOITATION, reviewed 03/05/2024, documented Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident.that prohibit and prevent abuse. In addition, documented Definitions: 'Abuse' means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations. and .'Physical Abuse' includes, but is not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policies titled Food Preparation and Service F804 F812 and Refrigerators and Freezers F812, the facility failed to store foods in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Additionally, the facility staff failed to record the daily temperatures of the refrigerator and freezer for two of two observed for temperature logs. The deficient practices had the potential to place 75 residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Food Preparation and Service F804 F812, last revised 10/23, revealed: Residents are provided with meals that are prepared by methods that conserve value, flavor, and appearance. Residents are provided with food and drink that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. On 6/18/2024, at 9:30 am, during the initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager (DM), one pack of moldy sub sandwich rolls [six-count] was observed stored with ready-to-eat…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-06-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Sanitation F812, the facility failed to ensure doors in the main kitchen remained in good repair to prevent pests from invading the main kitchen and one of two dining areas. This failure had the potential for pests to transfer harmful microorganisms to food leading to foodborne illness for the 75 residents receiving food from the kitchen. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Sanitation F812, effective 10/23, revealed: 1. All kitchens, kitchen areas and dining areas shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish and protected from rodents, roaches, flies and other insects. Observation of the main kitchen on 6/18/2024 at 10:00 am, 6/19/2024 at 11:00 am, and 6/19/2024 at 12:15 pm revealed a substantial number of live flies in the kitchen area. This observation was confirmed in the presence of the Dietary Manager (DM), who was interviewed. On 6/18/2024 at 10:00 am, observation found the back door in the main kitchen was slightly open, with an opening at the top of the door. The DM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Safe, Clean, Comfortable, Homelike Environment F584, the facility failed to ensure that maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior environment were provided. Specifically, 11 of 38 resident rooms were found in disrepair. These deficient practices had the potential to place residents at risk for the use of unsanitary and unsafe equipment and a potential for diminished quality of life. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled Safe, Clean, Comfortable, Homelike Environment F584, dated effective 9/2023, revealed: Policy Statement: F 584 Residents have the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports [sic] for daily living safely. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Staff shall provide person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence and personal needs and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, review of facility-posted signage and temperature logs, and a review of the facility policy titled 5.3 Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, the facility failed to store vaccines under proper temperature controls with twice daily monitoring and failed to remove from use medications, needles, and laboratory supplies that were kept past their expiration dates in one of one medication storage room and one of two medication carts reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to receive vaccinations with altered effectiveness and the potential for the use of expired medical and laboratory supplies. Findings include: The facility policy titled 5.3 Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, revised [DATE], stated: APPLICABILITY: This Policy 5.3 sets forth the procedures related to the storage and expiration dates of medications, biologicals, syringes and needles. PROCEDURE: . 4. Facility should ensure that medications…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Answering the Call Light, the facility staff failed to ensure resident call lights were within reach for three of 18 sampled residents (R) (R5, R46, R70). This failure placed R5, R46, and R70 at risk of accident, injury, and/or unmet needs related to an inability to call for staff assistance. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Answering the Call Light, with a review date of 9/2023, revealed: General Guidelines 5. When a resident is in bed or confined to a chair, be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. 1. A review of R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 10 (indicating moderate cognitive impairment), and section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) documented the resident required supervision with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). During the initial…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene F 880, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications via gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) (a tube surgically placed through the skin into the stomach to provide nutrition, hydration, and medication) to one resident (R) (R46) in a manner to prevent the development and transmission of infections. This deficient practice placed R46 at risk of contracting avoidable infections. Findings include: The facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene F 880, effective date 9/2023, stated: Guidelines: . 2. Staff shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors . 6. In most situations, the preferred method of hand hygiene is with an alcohol-based hand rub [ABHR]. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol-based hand rub containing 60-95% ethanol or isopropanol for all the following situations: a. Before and after direct contact with residents; b. Before donning sterile gloves;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-10-13 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy 'Food Service Staffing', the facility failed to ensure that the staff designated as director of food and nutrition services was a certified dietary or food service manager or had a similar food service management certification or degree. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 73 of 77 residents that received an oral diet. Findings include: Review of policy titled 'Food Service Staffing' last revised 10/2022 revealed '5. If the Dietician is not full time, then the community will employ another qualified nutritional professional to serve as the Dietary Manager. The person at a minimum must meet-one of the following qualifications: a. A certified dietary manager; b. A certified food service manager; c. Have similar certification in food service management and safety from a national certifying body; d. Has an associates or higher degree in food services management or in hospitality, if the course study includes food service or restaurant management from an accredited institution of higher learning.'…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-10-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary environment free of standing water in the dishwasher room, watering leaking into a plastic bin in the refrigerator, standing water under the ice machine with brown colored substance pooled beneath the ice machine, and a vent in the dry storage room with a thick coat of black substance. The facility also failed to maintain the holding temperature of five foods on the steam table above 135 degrees, to prevent the potential for food-borne illnesses. This had potential to affect 73 of 77 residents receiving oral diets. Findings include: 1. During initial tour of kitchen on 10/13/22 at 10:17 a.m. revealed water running under the ice machine from a pipe. The floor under and surrounding the ice machine was wet. Beneath the ice machine had a black substance on the floor running into the floor drain. Refrigerator located in kitchen has water dripping from a vent inside of the refrigerator. The floor in the dishwasher room is unlevel and standing water is noted under a waterproof floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-10-13 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure that essential equipment in the kitchen was in working order, specifically the steam table, one of two refrigerators, and one ice machine. This had the potential to affect 73 of 77 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: During initial tour of kitchen on 10/11/22 at 10:17 a.m. with [NAME] 'AA' revealed water running under the ice machine from one of the pipes. Refrigerator located in kitchen had water dripping from a vent inside the refrigerator into a plastic pan. During walk through of kitchen on 10/11/22 at 11:03 a.m. with Administrator confirmed the findings. Stated her expectation is for the dietary staff to report any equipment or environmental issues promptly. During observation of steam table temperatures on 10/13/22 at 11:53 a.m. with [NAME] 'AA' noted the steam table was not functioning properly. [NAME] 'AA' stuck her hand into one of the water basin and stated the water was tepid to touch. During interview on 10/13/22 at 2:15 p.m. with [NAME] 'AA' she revealed the maintenance director was going…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-10-13 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff followed recipes for preparing pureed meals to avoid compromising the nutritive value of food items served to residents on a pureed diet when compared with items served to residents on a regular diet for 13 residents receiving a pureed diet. Findings include: Review of the lunch menu for 10/13/22 revealed items which included ranch baked chicken. During the preparation of pureed food items on 10/13/22 at 11:12 a.m. [NAME] 'BB' was observed placing approximately six slices of bread into the food processor. [NAME] 'BB' then placed an unmeasured amount of chicken into the food processor with liquid from the bottom of the pan holding the chicken. She turned the food processor on. After approximately 30 seconds, the cook checked the consistency of the bread/chicken mixture and scraped the sides of the food processor. [NAME] 'BB' then placed an additional six slices of bread into the food processor with an unmeasured amount of chicken and liquid from the pan holding the chicken. She then…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to JOURNEY HEALTHCARE — 32 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 31 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBD LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 02/22/2015 |
| BARRES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| T AND C CAPITAL ASSETS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| WINDWARD HEALTH PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| CRINO, BRYAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| FEUER, SCOTT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| LINDEMAN, STUART | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| PASSERO, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| BARNES, MICHELLE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2018 |
| YOAKUM, JAMIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/24/2024 |
| MISSION HEALTH OF GEORGIA, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 93% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $318K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in GA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Georgia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 115540. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-10, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.