Coldspring Transitional Care Center
300 Plaza Drive, Cold Spring, KY 41076 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 143 certified beds · (859) 441-4600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.2% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 45.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 2.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.4% | 29.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.2% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.5% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.3% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.8% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.86 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.18 | 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.
67.8% 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 189 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% 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 70 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 67.8%CMS range 60.1–75.1 | 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 | 8.7%CMS range 6.6–11.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 60.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 38.6% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 1.8% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.2–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 143 beds and averages 135.4 residents a day — about 95% 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 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.06 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, review of the nursing guidebook of professional standards, review of the Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) standards, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure nursing services provided met professional standards of practice for 1 out of 12 sampled residents, Resident (R) 1.R1 was administered incorrect medications on 09/10/2025, which caused her to be sent to the hospital for further evaluation on 09/10/2025.Based on review of the facility's plan of correction (PoC) and validation through observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility had implemented corrective actions with a compliance date of 09/18/2025, before survey entrance. Therefore, the deficient practice was past noncompliance.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Identification of the Resident Prior to Medication Administration, revised 12/2021, revealed, Prior to administering medication, the nurse/medication aide identifies the recipient of the medication by: asking the resident his/her…
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 · F2025-05-15 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespreadEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility's policy, the facility failed to provide a nourishing snack at bedtime for 9 of 9 residents, Resident (R) 7, R22, R36, R66, R68, R76, R81, R91, and R94. On 05/13/2025 at 3:16 PM during the Resident Council meeting, all residents present stated the facility did not provide nourishing snacks for residents at bedtime. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, [Facility] Health Care Management Nourishment Center, dated 06/2019, revealed the facility would have light refreshments/snacks available to residents between meals or over-night. Per the policy, the refreshments would be available to new residents arriving to the facility after the evening meal. Observation during the initial tour on 05/12/2025 between 6:14 PM and 10:07 PM revealed State Tested Nursing Aides (STNA) on the 1300 Unit and 1400 Unit were asking residents if they wanted ice but did not inquire to see if the residents needed snacks. During an interview on 05/13/2025 at 3:16 PM in the Resident Council meeting, all residents…
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 before2025-05-15 · 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 for 1 of 32 sampled residents, Resident (R) 122, in Transmission-Based Precaution (TBP) or Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). 1. Observation and interview on 05/12/2025 revealed State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) 2 provided direct care to R122 who was under EBP. The STNA did not don (put on) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) before providing direct care. STNA2 was observed to exit R122's room wearing gloves while transporting trash to the dirty utility room. 2. Observation and interview on 05/12/2025 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 used a portable vital sign machine on R142 who was in EBP. The LPN…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment free of odors for 1 of 8 hallways, the 2100 Hall, with a census of 15 residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Environmental Services- Homelike Environment, dated 01/2025, revealed the facility was to provide a clean, odor free facility. Observations on 05/12/2025 at 6:55 PM and 8:27 PM, 05/13/2025 at 3:38 PM and 4:16 PM, and 05/14/2025 at 10:31 AM, revealed a strong urine smell in the 2100 hall, particularly concentrated around Resident (R) 79's room. Continued observation on 05/15/2025 at 10:58 AM revealed the odor of urine was still present, although not as strong as the previous days. In an interview on 05/12/2025 at 6:57 PM, R79 stated he spilled a full urinal by accident earlier that day, and it was a while before staff cleaned it up. He explained staff had not emptied his urinal after the last time he used it, and he did not realize that it had urine in it when he first picked it up. In an interview on 05/15/2025 at 11:05 AM, State…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 Minimum Data Set [MDS] assessments were correct for 1 of 32 sampled residents, Resident (R) 45. The findings include: Review of R45's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/19/2022 with admission diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of R45's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), not dated, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a self-care deficit related to range of motion limitations and contractures of her knees. Further review revealed interventions including use of a Broda chair (special adaptive wheelchair), use of a Hoyer lift (mechanical lift to transfer the resident from surface to surface), and assisting with positioning to help maintain proper body alignment. Review of R45's quarterly MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/07/2025, and the quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 05/08/2025, revealed the facility coded R45 as having no impairment in functional range of motion in her upper…
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 · E2020-01-31 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 review of facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. Observations on 01/28/2020, 01/29/2020, 01/30/2020, and 01/31/2020, revealed the 1200 Unit Hallway had a strong odor of urine. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Guidelines to Good Housekeeping - Environmental Services Nursing Department, dated 02/28/03, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide guidelines specific for cleaning duties to provide an optimum environment for the staff, residents, and visitors. Continued review revealed the procedure for cleaning included for the resident lavatory to be sprayed with an EPA approved disinfectant and wiped with a damp cloth, clean the inside surfaces of the bowl, rinse the cloth under the faucet and rinse the inner surfaces of the bowl and wash and rinse the outer surfaces of the bowl with a damp cloth. Review 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.
- Potential for harm · D2020-01-31 · 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 observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan for each resident to assist in attaining or maintaining the residents' highest practicable quality of life for one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents, (Resident #109). Resident #109 had a Vascular Access Catheter for Hemodialysis on the left upper chest at the Subclavian region due to previous Hemodialysis due to End Stage Renal Disease. The Vascular Access was exposed and did not have a wound covering/dressing in place. The findings include: Review of facility's Care Planning Policy, dated 01/2019, revealed the facility will provide resident centered care aiming to provide individualized Comprehensive/Interdisciplinary Care Plans for each resident. The care plan is developed to guide the resident in reaching their maximum functional level -while encompassing a holistic approach. The facility's objective is to assist the resident in meeting their personal goals, with optimal functioning level and 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.
- Potential for harm · D2020-01-31 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents receive proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision and hearing abilities for one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents (Resident #53). An Audiology (hearing) evaluation performed by Three Sixty (360) Care, on 03/05/2019, determined Resident #53 would benefit from hearing aids to help his/her hearing loss. The recommendation was sent to the attending physician for approval on 03/05/2019. The facility received signed approval from the attending physician on 03/11/2019. However, there was no documented evidence the facility followed through with assisting Resident #53 in making follow up appointments with Three Sixty (360) Care. Consequently, Resident #53 did not receive hearing aids as recommended. The findings include: A post-survey phone interview, with the Administrator, on 02/07/2020 at 11:15 AM, revealed the facility does not have a policy regarding hearing exams. Record review revealed 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 · Dcited before2020-01-31 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's Policy, 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 to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases infections for one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents (Resident #109) Observation on 01/29/2020 during the initial screening interview revealed Resident #109 had a vascular access catheter located at the left clavicle-chest area which was exposed without a dressing in place. This access had been utilized for dialysis. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Infection Prevention and Control (IPCP), revised 01/2020, revealed the tended purpose of the facility's infection control policy was to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. Continued review revealed all personnel would be trained on the infection control…
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 · E2019-01-17 · 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 and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals. Observation on 01/16/18, revealed three (3) medication carts had boxes of foiled packages of ipratropium/albuterol nebulizer vials. The foiled packages were open and expired, or were open and not marked with an open date. The findings include: Review of the facility Medication storage Policy, dated 8/2018, revealed once a medication is opened the facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates related to opened medications. Continued review revealed facility staff should record the date opened on the medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened. Further review of the Policy, revealed medications and biologicals should not be retained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier. Review of the Manufacturer's Recommendations for ipratropium/albuterol nebulizer vials, revealed once the foiled packaging was open, discard after fourteen (14) days.…
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 · D2019-01-17 · 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
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 revised for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #1). Although Resident #1 sustained falls on 11/04/18, 12/08/18, and 12/10/18, and record review revealed interventions were implemented after the falls; there was no documented evidence the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was revised with these interventions. Also, Physician's Orders were received on 01/09/19 for fall interventions; however, the CCP was not revised to include these orders/interventions. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled Advance Care Planning, revised 12/2017, revealed it was the facility's policy that situations needing investigation and/or follow up are conducted timely. However, the Policy did not address revision of the Care Plan. Review of the facility's Fall and Accident Management Policy, revised 05/2016, revealed when a resident falls 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARESPRING — 16 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 | 2 of 5 | 4.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/01/2014 |
| BARRY N BORTZ 06042009 TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 72% | since 02/01/2014 |
| BORTZ FAMILY IRREVOCABLE T/A | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/01/2014 |
| EPPERS, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 15% | since 02/01/2014 |
| LEWANDOWSKI, ADAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/09/2018 |
| CHIRUMBOLO, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| CARECO LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/15/2014 |
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/15/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $957K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 185476. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.