Barbourville Health and Rehabilitation Center
65 Minton Hickory Farm Road, Barbourville, KY 40906 · For profit - Corporation · 135 certified beds · (606) 546-5136 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- it has 7 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $87,077 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-30)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 held steady at 1 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 | 19.3% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 3.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 38.0% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.0% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.8% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 24.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.0% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.46 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 6.02 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
44.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 40.0% 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 20 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 44.4%CMS range 29.1–58.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.2–15.8 | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | 45.0% | 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 | 30.0% | 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 3.5–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.12 | 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 135 beds and averages 110.8 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 24 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 3.73 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 2.42 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.90 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.04 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is about the same as 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 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.
19 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · H2024-09-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure care plans were revised to provide necessary interventions for supervision and monitoring for residents to prevent falls/accidents for 8 of 10 sampled residents, (Resident (R)10, R15, R27, R51, R75, R93, R111, and R274). The facility failed to thoroughly investigate and evaluate residents' falls by performing root cause analysis (RCA) to determine the root cause of the numerous residents' falls in order to review/revise the residents' care plans to prevent additional falls and injuries for residents. In addition, the facility failed to ensure residents' comprehensive care plans (CCP) were reviewed/revised for each of the residents' falls, and failed to ensure the date was noted when care plan interventions were initiated. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls Management/Prevention, revised 07/2024, revealed the purpose of the policy was 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.
- Actual harm · Hcited before2024-09-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 the facility's policies, the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent falls/accidents for eight (8) of ten (10) sampled residents reviewed for falls/accidents, Resident (R)10, R15, R27, R51, R75, R93, R111, and R274. The facility had a total of 346 falls during the six (6) month time period from 02/28/2024 to 08/28/2024, and an additional 26 falls from 08/29/2024 to 09/25/2024. However, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and evaluate the falls to determine the root cause of each fall; and, failed to develop individualized care plan interventions to prevent further falls/injuries for each resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls Management/Prevention, revised 07/2024, revealed the purpose of the policy was to establish a program to identify residents with risk factors that might place them at risk for falls. Policy review revealed its purpose also…
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 · H2024-09-30 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for the management of falls for five of ten sampled residents, (Residents (R)10, R15, R93, R111, and R274). Review of the facility's document titled, Incidents by Incident Type, dated 02/28/2024 through 08/28/2024 revealed the facility noted 44 witnessed falls and 302 unwitnessed falls for a total of 346 fall during that six month time period. Further review revealed 42 of the 346 falls had an injury noted. However, the facility's administration failed to evaluate the falls through Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to determine the cause of the falls in order to review/revise the residents' comprehensive care plans with interventions to assist in prevention of further falls or to prevent further injuries from falls. Refer to F689 and F657. The findings include: Review of the facility's, Job…
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 · H2024-09-30 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — patternHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's fall report documentation and Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective, comprehensive, data driven QAPI program which focused on criteria for outcomes and quality of life related to falls for 8 of 10 sampled residents, (Residents (R)10, R15, R27, R57, R75, R93, R111, and R274. Review of the facility's Incidents by Incident Type, documentation dated 02/28/2024 through 08/28/2024, revealed the facility had a total of 346 resident falls during that six-month timeframe. Review of the facility's QAPI documentation however, revealed no documented evidence the facility brought the issue of multiple residents' falls to the QAPI Committee prior to August 2024. The facility's QAPI program failed to develop and implement plans with corrective actions, such as performing RCA, in order to decrease the number of residents' falls and any additional fall related injuries of the residents. Refer to F689 and F657. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy…
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 · G2019-06-28 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan was implemented for four (4) of thirty-one (31) sampled residents (Residents #59, #70, #85, and Resident #105). The facility assessed and care planned Resident #105 and Resident #70 to require the assistance of two or more staff members with bed mobility. However, on 05/26/19, at approximately 1:30 PM, SRNA #3 attempted to reposition Resident #105 in bed without another staff member present. As a result, the resident sustained a fall from the bed and fractures to the left ankle. The facility had also assessed Resident #70 to require two staff members for turning and repositioning; however, on 06/27/19, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was observed to turn and reposition the resident without another staff member present. In addition, the facility assessed Resident #59 to require extensive assistance with personal care and grooming. However, observations on 06/25/19 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.
- Actual harm · G2019-06-28 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of thirty-one (31) sampled residents received quality care based on the comprehensive assessment of the resident and the resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan. On 05/28/19, staff assessed Resident #105's left foot to be red, swollen, and hot to touch. Although staff notified the resident's physician on 05/28/19 and an order for a Doppler ultrasound of the left foot and the initiation of an antibiotic was obtained, staff failed to follow up on the ordered ultrasound results and failed to monitor the resident's left foot/ankle. In addition, there was no documented assessment of the resident or the resident's left ankle area until 05/31/19, despite interviews with staff, including the LPN caring for the resident who stated purple discoloration was present to the area on 05/29/19 and 05/30/19. On 05/31/19, an x-ray of Resident #105's left ankle revealed fractures of 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2019-06-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent accidents for two (2) of thirty-one (31) sampled residents (Resident #70 and Resident #105). On 05/26/19, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #3 was repositioning Resident #105 in bed without assistance from another staff member, which the facility had assessed the resident to require. Subsequently, on 05/31/19, five days later, Resident #105 was diagnosed with a fractured left ankle. In addition, observation on 06/27/19 revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 turned and repositioned Resident #70 in bed without assistance from another staff member, which the resident was assessed to require. The findings include: Review of the Incident Investigation Policy, not dated, revealed, It is the policy of the facility that a Resident Incident Report will be completed with any incident to track, trend, and determine possible cause and develop an intervention to prevent reoccurrence. The policy…
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 · F2025-08-28 · 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food items were discarded when required, milk received from a vendor had a legible expiration date, food items in the walk-in freezer and dry storage room were stored appropriately, and the room temperature of the dry storage room did not exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F). These deficient practices had the potential to affect all 114 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Food Storage, indicated, 2. Dry storage rooms must be well ventilated and illuminated, with adequate temperature and humidity controls to prevent condensation of moisture and growth of mold. The storeroom temperature should be 50 [degrees] to 70 [degrees] F. The policy specified, b. Food should be dated as it is placed on the shelves if required by state regulation. c. Date marking should be visible on all high-risk food to indicate the date ready-to-eat or TCS [time/temperature control food] food should be consumed, sold or discarded. Per the policy, All foods…
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 · D2025-08-28 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor a resident's right to have a personal fan in their room for 1 (Resident 3) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for personal property.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Resident Rights, revised 12/2022, recorded, Purpose: To protect and promote the rights of each resident. The policy specified the resident had the right to u. To be able to retain and use personal possessions as space permits. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #3 on 06/17/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anxiety disorder. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/24/2025, indicated Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. During a concurrent observation and interview on 08/25/2025 at 11:11 AM, Resident #3 stated Registered Nurse (RN) #7 took their personal black fan…
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 · D2025-08-28 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 (Resident #122) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care.Findings included: An undated facility policy titled Protocol for Nail Care, indicated, Nail care for all residents that do not have a diagnosis of Diabetes will have nail care provided weekly per Nurse Aide staff as needed and will document on the NA [nurse aide] flow sheets. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #122 on 08/22/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that diagnoses of B-cell lymphoma, restless leg syndrome, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis. Resident #122's Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 5, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #122's 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan indicated the resident required assistance of two staff for hygiene, bathing, dressing, and grooming. During an observation on 08/25/2025 at 10:35 AM,…
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 before2025-08-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) mask was stored when not in use for 1 (Resident #15) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care.Findings included: An undated facility policy titled Protocol for CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure/BiPAP Machines, did not specify how respiratory equipment should be stored when not in use. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #15 on 06/10/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #15's Care Plan Report included a focus area initiated 07/05/2025, that indicated the resident was at risk for alteration in respiratory status due to COPD with chronic supplemental oxygen use and had a BiPAP machine that was ordered for nighttime use. Resident #15's physician orders included an order dated 08/08/2025, for the resident to wear the BiPAP…
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 · D2025-08-28 · 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication rate was 5 percent (%) or less. The facility had 2 medication errors out of 29 opportunities, which yielded a medication error rate of 6.90 % for 2 (Resident #10 and Resident #45) of 7 residents observed for medication administration. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Administering Medications Policy, dated 03/2024, revealed, Medications are to be administered by licensed medical or nursing personnel as prescribed. Medications shall be administered accurately and timely. 1. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 02/04/2016. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease. Resident #10's Order Summary Report, that contained active orders as of 08/25/2025, revealed an order dated 06/30/2023, for potassium chloride extended release (ER) oral tablet 10 milliequivalents, give one tablet by mouth twice a day for supplement. The Full Prescribing…
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 · D2024-09-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to protect and promote the rights of 1 of 63 sampled residents (Resident (R) 95). R95 refused an injection on 08/25/2024; however, nurses administered the injection after the resident's refusal. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Policy and Procedure: Resident Rights, revised 12/2022, revealed its purpose was to protect and promote the rights of each resident. Continued review of the policy revealed each resident had a right to refuse treatment and to be given the opportunity to participate in care and treatment. Review of R95's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/30/2022, with diagnoses that included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, type 2 diabetes mellitius without complications, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and Gullain-Barre syndrome. Review of R95's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/23/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)…
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 · D2024-09-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's Physician and notify the resident's representative(s) when there was an accident or need to alter treatment for 3 of 63 sampled residents, (Resident (R)15, R95 and R274). 1. R15 sustained a fall on 04/29/2024; however, the facility failed to notify the resident's State Guardian and Physician until 04/30/2024. On 04/30/2024, the facility transferred R15 to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. R15 was diagnosed with a spiral humeral fracture (a type of bone break occurring from a twisting motion in the upper arm) which was comminuted (when a bone breaks into multiple pieces) and displaced. 2. R274 sustained an injury on 07/06/2022; however, the facility failed to notify the resident's Responsible Party and Physician until 07/08/2022. On 07/09/2022, the facility transferred R15 to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. R274 was diagnosed with an…
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 · D2024-09-30 · 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 Surveyor [NAME] Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made to the facility's Administrator and other officials, including the State Survey Agency and Adult Protective Services (APS) for 1 of 63 sampled residents, (Resident (R) 274). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation and Exploitation Policy revealed all allegations involving suspected abuse, neglect, misappropriation or exploitation including injuries of unknown source or misappropriation of a resident's property were to be reported immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation was made to the Director of Nursing (DON) and/or Administrator. Continued review revealed the DON, Administrator or Designee were to report such allegations to the appropriate state and federal agencies, including law enforcement, as…
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 · D2024-09-30 · 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 Surveyor: [NAME] Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 63 sampled residents (Resident (R) 274). The facility admitted R274 with contractures of both upper and lower extremities. On 07/06/2022, two Certified Nursing Assistants were bathing R274, when one CNA lifted the resident's left arm and heard two pops. On 07/08/2022, an injury of unknown source was identified; however, the facility's investigation was not initiated until the day after the injury was discovered. In addition, the facility failed to interview all the staff present when the incident occurred. The facility transferred R274 to the hospital emergency department (ED). Hospital staff diagnosed R274 with an angulated spiral (corkscrew like fracture) fracture of the midshaft of the left humerus with mild impaction. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect,…
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 · D2019-06-28 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to ensure one (1) of thirty-one (31) sampled residents received care and services to maintain appropriate grooming. The facility assessed Resident #59 to require extensive assistance of staff for personal care and grooming. However, observations on 06/25/19 through 06/27/19, revealed the resident's fingernails were long and in need of trimming with a brown substance caked under each of the nails on both hands. The findings include: A request for policies and procedures related to activities of daily living and grooming was made to the Administrator during the survey; however, the facility failed to provide the requested policies and procedures. Review of Resident #59's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/27/17 with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness, Lack of Coordination, Dementia, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A review of Resident #59's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment…
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 before2019-06-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 ensure tracheostomy care was provided for one (1) of thirty-one (31) residents in accordance with the facility policy and professional standards. Observation on 06/26/19 revealed endotracheal supplies required for suctioning Resident #105 were not available at the resident's bedside. The findings include: Review of the facility's Tracheostomy Care policy, not dated, revealed supplies and equipment necessary to care for a resident's tracheostomy would be available at the resident's bedside at all times. Supplies and equipment listed included a suction machine, suction catheters, exam and sterile gloves, and a flush solution. Review of Resident #105's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/12/12. The resident's diagnoses included Diabetes Mellitus, Persistent Vegetative State, Tracheostomy, and Contractures of the Upper and Lower extremities. Review of Resident #105's…
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 · D2019-06-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in a locked compartment and available only to authorized personnel. Observation on 06/27/19, revealed a bottle of eye drops was left unsecured in a resident's room. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Proper Storage of Biologicals/Hazardous Materials/Items, not dated, revealed drugs/biologicals were to be securely stored in a locked area that was not accessible to residents. During observation of a medication pass on 06/27/19 at 9:23 AM, a bottle of artificial tears labeled for Resident #79 was observed sitting on top of the refrigerator in the resident's room. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 on 06/27/19 at 09:24 AM, revealed eye drops should be stored in the medication cart and not left in the resident's room. RN #2 stated she did not leave the eye drops in the resident's room, and could not say why the eye drops were there. Interview with the Unit Manager for Resident #79's unit on…
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
$87,077 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $87,077 — penalty dated 2024-09-30
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-29 for 10 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SEKY HOLDING CO. — 9 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEKY HOLDING CO | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/13/2003 |
| FCLTC HOLDINGS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/28/2016 |
| FORCHT, TERRY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/18/2003 |
| CARTER, RICHARD | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| SIZEMORE, HANNAH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/09/2021 |
| ALSIP, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| JARBOE, MICHELLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| TIPTON, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/16/2018 |
| WITT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| WILLIS, JACKIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| DAILEY, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/16/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 84% 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 $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 185164. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-28, 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.