Kingsbrook Lifecare Center
2500 State Route 5, Ashland, KY 41102 · Non profit - Corporation · 137 certified beds · (606) 324-1414 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (25% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $11,154 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-28)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 3 to 4 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 | 15.2% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.9% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.9% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.6% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.3% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.0% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
59.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 315 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.8% 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 137 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% 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 | 59.1%CMS range 54.3–65.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 8.8–13.7 | 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 | 35.8% | 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 | 32.9% | 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 | 29.2% | 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 | 98.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 99.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.8–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 137 beds and averages 129.1 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 5.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.96 is at or above 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 4.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.23 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% is below the national median of 45%.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-06-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 interview, record review, review of the Kentucky Medicaid Nurse Aide Testing Procedures Manual and Study Guide, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received care planning to meet the resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 26 residents reviewed for care planning (Resident (R) 99). The facility failed to develop care plan interventions to address care of R99's uncircumcised penis, resulting in worsening of an infection of the resident's penis that required surgical intervention. Refer to F684 The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Plan of Care (CCP), revised 11/2002, revealed the purpose was to provide an individualized plan of care for each resident, by means of a written document which included input from all disciplines involved in the provision of care. Further review revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) or Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, served as the coordinator of the interdisciplinary team…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 interview, record review, review of the Kentucky Medicaid Nurse Aide Testing Procedures Manual and Study Guide, and review of Mosby's Textbook for Nursing Assistants, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet the resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 3 residents assessed for skin care (Resident (R) 99). Staff failed to re-assess identified redness under R99's penile foreskin, even though the resident was complaining of pain during urination, which resulted in worsening of an infection that required surgical intervention. The findings include: Review of the Kentucky Medicaid Nurse Aide Testing Procedures Manual and Study Guide, dated 01/01/2024, revealed for perineal care for an uncircumcised male, to retract the foreskin and to return the foreskin to its natural position. Review of Giving Male Perineal Care from Mosby's Textbook for Nursing Assistants, page 370, revealed providing peri care to…
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 · E2025-06-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation report, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 4 of 26 sampled residents, Resident (R) 99, R110, R117, and R130. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, revised 10/2022, revealed the resident had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, including privacy and the right to participate in decisions and care planning. 1. Review of R117's admission Record revealed the facility admitted her on 04/01/2025 with diagnoses of acute kidney failure, congestive heart failure, and hyponatremia. Review of R117's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/07/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to…
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 · Ecited before2025-06-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections affecting 4 of 26 sampled residents, Residents (R) 57, R60, R87, and R132. Observations on 06/02/2025 and 06/04/2025 revealed opened packages of resident items, clothing, and equipment that were stored in unclean areas; staff providing direct care for residents in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) that did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), dispose of PPE properly, and perform required hand hygiene; staff holding clean linen against their person; and staff, after performing fingersticks to measure blood glucose levels, did not clean and disinfect two glucometers according to the…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's agreement with the dialysis center, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring dialysis received services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services for 2 of 3 residents receiving dialysis, Resident (R) 64 and R123. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Continuum of Care with Dialysis Center, revised 10/2017, revealed the facility's intent was to maintain effective communication with the dialysis center to provide the best continuum of care and outcomes for all residents receiving hemodialysis. Additional review revealed nursing would provide the dialysis center with a current medication list. Further review revealed the dialysis center would send labs, diet, and weight sheets back to the facility following treatment for nursing to review and place in the resident's medical record. Review of the facility's agreement with…
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 · E2024-06-28 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the website www.drugs.com, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored according to professional standards for 1 of 3 medication room refrigerators and 3 of 4 medication carts. Proper temperature control for the medication room refrigerator on the Forest Heights Unit was not maintained, and staff failed to notify the Maintenance Director of the equipment failure. Staff failed to write the expiration date on three insulin pens (two in the medication cart on the Forest Heights Unit and one in the medication cart on the Garden View Unit) based on the date they were removed from refrigeration. Staff failed to discard two tramadol pills in the medication cart on the Shoreline Unit after the packaging was damaged . The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage in the Facility, not dated, revealed medications and biologicals were stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Review…
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 · F2019-03-28 · 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 observation, interview and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation during initial tour on 03/26/19 of the kitchen, revealed there was an accumulation of dust on the dish room ceiling, above the kitchen production area and on the ceiling in the refrigerator walk-in. In addition, the temperature logs for the walk-in refrigerator, freezer and dry storage were incomplete. Additionally, Resident #35 was observed to have multiple perishable food items in his/her room. The findings include: Review of the kitchen document titled Weekly Cleaning Schedule undated, revealed it did not include a schedule for cleaning dust on the ceiling. Review of the facility Policy titled Refrigerated Storage dated 05/2006, revealed a variety of foods are stored under refrigeration and the temperatures are low enough to safely keep perishable foods. Per Policy, each refrigerator contains a thermometer and temperature charts are to be documented daily. Review of the Refrigerated…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for one (1) of twenty-five (25) total sampled residents (Resident #29). Observation of staff member with residents in the Parlor Dining Room located on The Forest Heights Unit, on 03/27/19, revealed State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 obtaining vital signs for one (1) of twenty-five (25) total sampled residents, Resident #29. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Social Services Resident Rights, revised 11/2017 revealed the facility recognized each resident's right to a dignified existence and self-determination. Further review revealed it was the policy of the facility to ensure resident's rights were promoted and protected. Continued policy review revealed the facility would provide Resident Rights education to staff annually. Review of Resident #29's clinical record…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #64). Although Resident #64 sustained a fall on 01/26/19, this fall was not reflected on the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. The findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 3.0, revised May 2011, revealed under Chapter 3, Section J1800, if this is not the first assessment, review period from the day after the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the last MDS Assessment to the ARD of the current Assessment. Review all available sources for any fall since the last assessment, no matter whether it occurred while out in the community, in an acute hospital, or in the nursing home. Review nursing home…
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 · Dcited before2019-03-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of facility Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to implement Comprehensive Care Plans for each resident, to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being related to ongoing psychotropic medication monitoring for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #56). Resident #56's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 08/14/18, revealed interventions to observe for effectiveness of medications; and observe for side effects of medication. However, there was no documented evidence during January, February or Mach of 2019, of ongoing monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences of Haloperidol Lactate Concentrate which was prescribed for a diagnosis of Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, on 06/29/18. (Refer to F-758) The findings include: Review of facility's Policy, titled…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan was revised for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #64). Resident #64, sustained a fall on 01/26/19, and the facility conducted aRoot Cause Analysis with corrective action including interventions for a Reacher/Grabber and to Keep the resident in populated areas; however, the Comprehensive Care Plan was not revised with the new interventions. The findings include: Review of facility's Policy, titled Comprehensive Plan of Care, revised November 2002, revealed the comprehensive care plan must describe services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Further review revealed the care plan will be updated quarterly, whenever significant changes occur, or annually. 1. Review of Resident #64's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/30/18 with diagnoses which included Cerebral Infarction due to Unspecified Occlusion or Stenosis of Unspecified Cerebral Artery;…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
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 observation, interview, record review and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #35). Resident #35 exhibited hoarding behaviors including hoarding of papers which were stacked against the walls of the resident's room and were all over the resident's bed. In addition, there was hoarding of left over food and perishable foods. Although there was a Physician's Order received on 08/23/17, which stated may have psychiatric evaluation as needed, there was no documented evidence the facility attempted to provide psychiatric services as ordered. In addition, there was no documented evidence the facility addressed Resident #35's hoarding behavior through behavioral management to ensure necessary person-centered…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents who use psychotropic drugs receive adequate monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences, to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for psychotropic medications out of (25) sampled residents (Resident #56). Resident #56 was prescribed scheduled Haloperidol Lactate Concentrate (antipsychotic psychotropic drug) related to Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, on 06/29/18; however, there was no documented evidence during January, February or Mach of 2019, of ongoing monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences for the psychotropic drug. The findings include: Review of the facility's Psychotropic Medication Management Program Policy, revised October 2017, revealed the facility would monitor behaviors and adverse consequences of psychotropic medication for residents receiving psychotropic medications. Further, all residents on psychotropic…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that its medication error rates were not five percent (5%) or greater. Observation of medication pass, on 03/28/19 at 9:01 AM, for Resident #277, revealed the nurse crushed one (1) Potassium Chloride Extended Release (ER) twenty (20) Milliequivalents (MEQ) Tablet, crushed three (3) Metoprolol Succinate ER twenty-five (25) Milligram (MG) tablets, crushed one (1) Amiodarone Hydrochloride (HCL) 100 Milligram (MG) Tablet, and crushed one (1) Methocarbamol 500 mg Tablet. Then, the nurse opened one (1) Omeprazole 20 mg Delayed-Release (DR) Capsule and opened one (1) Duloxetine 30 mg DR Capsule and placed the contents of each crushed tablet and each opened capsule into a medication cup. The nurse further mixed the contents with vanilla pudding, and administered the preparation as a bolus. However, there was no documented evidence of a Physicians' Order to crush the medications or to administer the medications in a bolus for this resident. This observation…
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 · D2019-03-28 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #277). Observation of medication administration, on 03/29/19 at 9:01 AM, on Forest Heights Unit, A-Hall, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8 crushed Potassium Chloride Extended-Release (ER) and Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (ER) and administered the medication to Resident #277. Potassium Chloride Extended-Release (ER) and Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (ER) were two (2) medications that were listed on the facility's Oral Dosage Forms That Should Not Be Crushed List. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, effective 04/2002, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide resident medications as ordered. Further policy review revealed the facility would administer medications according to the Five (5) Rights of medication administration that…
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 · Dcited before2019-03-28 · 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, interview, and review of the facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for infections out of a total of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #277). Observation of medication administration on 03/28/19 revealed staff failed to perform proper hand hygiene prior to preparation of medications, before entering resident's room and during administration of eye medication for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents, Resident #277. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Handwashing, dated 12/2001 and revised 02/2003, revealed the facility recognized handwashing as the most basic yet most effective means of preventing and controlling the spread of infection. Further review of the facility's Handwashing Policy revealed, Every staff member had a…
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
$11,154 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $4,394 — penalty dated 2024-06-28
- $6,760 — penalty dated 2024-06-28
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-07-30 for 7 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASHLAND HOSPITAL CORPORATION | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2022 |
| BEYOND BLUE CORPORATION | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2021 |
| ROYAL BLUE HEALTH, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2021 |
| UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2022 |
| BIRDWHISTELL, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2021 |
| BURNETTE, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2010 |
| CLIFTON, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/01/2022 |
| COLLINS, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2021 |
| COX, PENNY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2022 |
| DIPAOLA, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2022 |
| DUGAS, GINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2022 |
| MONDAY, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2021 |
| PERRY, APRIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/30/2026 |
| STEWART, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2017 |
| STEWART, LAURIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/12/2026 |
| MARKS, SARA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2022 |
| BLANKENSHIP, JANE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
4 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.
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 KY
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 Kentucky 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 185449. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.