Signature Healthcare at Summit Manor Rehab & Welln
400 Bomar Heights, Columbia, KY 42728 · For profit - Corporation · 104 certified beds · (270) 384-2153 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.3% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.4% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 16.6% | 17.7% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 3.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 43.2% | 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 | 3.9% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.9% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.9% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.0% | 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 | 13.8% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.53 | 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.
50.7% 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 118 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.0% 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 49 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% 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 | 50.7%CMS range 43.6–58.1 | 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 | 12.2%CMS range 9.2–16.8 | 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 | 49.0% | 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 | 44.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 34.7% | 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 | 68.6% | 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 | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 4.3–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 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 104 beds and averages 84.3 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 20 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-26 · 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 the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and well-maintained environment. Multiple maintenance concerns were observed throughout the facility that had the potential to all residents. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Home-like Environment, last revised 09/05/2025, revealed the resident has a right to a safe, clean, and homelike environment.Observation, on 03/24/2026 at 8:34 AM, revealed a handrail leading into the kitchen that was not securely attached, with screws coming out of the wall. Also, there was a separate handrail end which was not attached securely to the wall mount and jiggled. Observation on 03/24/2026 at 9:05 AM; 03/25/2026 at 2:45 PM; and 03/26/2026 at 7:25 AM, revealed a water hose lying in the flowerbeds at the entrance to the facility. A white styrofoam cup was observed on the ground outside of a resident's window. Observation, on 03/24/2026 at 9:36 AM, revealed the entry door to the kitchen…
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 before2025-01-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to prepare, distribute, and serve food in a sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Dietary staff failed to wash hands and change gloves prior to preparing resident foods and failed to check the temperatures of seven of ten food items on the steam table during the dinner meal on 01/21/2025. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food: Preparation revised 09/2017, revealed all foods were prepared in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. Per the policy, all staff would practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use and the staff would be responsible for food preparation procedures that avoid contamination by potentially harmful physical, biological, and chemical contamination. Further review of the policy revealed, all utensils, food contact equipment, and food contact surfaces were required to be cleaned and sanitized after every use. An observation on 01/21/2025 at 5:26 PM,…
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 · D2019-10-17 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide two (2) of twenty-eight (28) sampled residents (Resident #57 and Resident #79) with notification regarding bed hold upon transfer out of the facility. Residents #57 and #79 did not receive notifications regarding bed hold when transferred to an acute care hospital. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Facility Bedhold, dated 11/12/18, revealed the facility would notify the resident/responsible party of the facility's bed hold and readmission policies at time of admission and anytime a resident is transferred to the hospital or goes out on therapeutic leave. The policy further stated the facility would provide a written notice of the bed hold and readmission policies before a resident's transfer to the hospital or for overnight therapeutic leave. 1. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/15/19 during initial tour at approximately 12:00 noon, revealed the resident lying on his/her back…
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 · D2019-10-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #20). Resident #20 was observed to have limited range of motion to bilateral upper and lower extremities that was not coded on the MDS. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Assessment, review date 07/31/18, revealed on page 1, The facility must conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument page G-37 revealed specific steps to test the resident's upper and lower extremities for range of motion. For each hand, instruct the resident to make a fist and then open their hand. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-17 · 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 facility policy review it was determined that the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #20) that met the resident's needs. Resident #20 was observed to have limited range of motion to bilateral upper and lower extremities that was not addressed on the resident's care plan. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, reviewed 07/19/18, revealed on page 1, The Comprehensive Care Plan is based on a thorough assessment that includes, but is not limited to the Resident Assessment Instrument. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument page G-37 revealed specific steps to test the resident's upper and lower extremities for range of motion. Review of #20's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Cerebral Infarction, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Heart Disease, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure expired medication was not available for use and was identified timely and removed from the current medication supply. Observation of the nurses cart on Sunset Blvd. on [DATE] at 11:34 AM revealed an open bottle of Humulin R dated as opened on [DATE] for unsampled Resident #72. Review of Resident #72's Physician's Orders revealed Humulin R insulin had been discontinued on [DATE]. The findings include: Review of facility policy, Medication Administration, dated [DATE], revealed the policy did not address insulin but on Page 4, Section 8.c stated, Certain products or package types such as multi-dose vials and ophthalmic drops have specific shortened end-of-use dating once opened, to ensure medication purity and potency (Refer to Section 9.10-Medication With Shortened Expiration Dates). Further review of the policy revealed there was no Section 9.10. Further review of the facility policy, Medication Administration,…
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 · D2018-09-13 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of one (1) resident assessment was transmitted within 14 days after Resident #1's discharge to an acute care hospital on [DATE], with no return anticipated. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Resident Assessment, with a revision date of June 2017, revealed a return not anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment would be transmitted within fourteen (14) days of the completion date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/29/18, with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #1's discharge MDS completed by the facility on 05/20/18, revealed the resident had been discharged from the facility to an acute care hospital on [DATE], with no return anticipated. However, there was no evidence the facility had transmitted the assessment as of 09/13/18. Interview conducted with the MDS Coordinator on 09/13/18…
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 · D2018-09-13 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents. Resident #6 was diagnosed with Schizophrenia on 06/13/18; however, the facility failed to ensure a Level II PASARR assessment was completed. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing revealed the facility did not have a policy regarding the completion of PASARR assessments. Review of Resident #68's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Anxiety Disorder, Cerebrovascular Disease, Visual Hallucinations, Hemiplegia affecting Left Nondominant Side, and Arthropathy. Further review of the resident's medical record revealed a Level I PASARR was completed for Resident #68 on 09/30/08. Further review revealed Resident #68 received a new diagnosis of Schizophrenia…
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 before2018-09-13 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to follow the care plan for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents related to bowel and bladder. The facility staff failed to provide the assistance Resident #63 required for bed mobility as required on the Comprehensive Care Plan. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, not dated, revealed a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs was developed for each resident and included how the facility would assist the resident to meet their needs, goals, and preferences. Review of Resident #63's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/22/13 with diagnoses that include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Pleural Effusion, Pneumonia, Flaccid Hemiplegia affecting Left Nondominant Side, Heart Failure, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-09-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 a review of the facility's incontinence care policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #59) with urinary incontinence received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections. Observation revealed staff failed to provide incontinence care for Resident #59 on 09/12/18 in accordance with the facility's policy. The findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Perineal Care Male or Female, undated, revealed the penis and scrotum were required to be cleaned and dried for male residents who were incontinent. A review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/26/18 with diagnoses that included Dementia, Chronic Back Pain, Transient Ischemic Attacks, and Urinary Retention. A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed the resident to be frequently…
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 before2018-09-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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, record review, and review of the facility policy it was determined the facility failed to maintain the kitchen environment and equipment in a sanitary manner. Observation revealed the drip pan on the range had a buildup of food debris and dried stains, the can opener had a buildup of dried food debris on the cutting blade and stains on the base of the unit, and the bottom of the plate warmer was soiled with food and liquid stains. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's kitchen sanitation policy, dated 02/19/15, revealed the drip pan underneath the range top was to be removed and cleaned after each evening shift. Observation of the drip pan under the range top at 8:35 AM on 09/11/18 revealed the drip pan was soiled with a buildup of food debris and burnt grease. Review of the weekly cleaning schedule revealed the range drip pan had been cleaned on Friday (no date or initials) and was wiped off on Monday (no date or initials). Interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) at 8:40 AM CDT on 09/11/18 revealed it had been a few days since the range…
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 · D2018-09-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and a review of the facility policy it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection control program to prevent the development and transmission of infectious disease for two (2) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #15 and Resident #70). Staff failed to utilize standard precautions of changing gloves and performing hand hygiene after performing incontinence care for Resident #15 and performing wound care treatment for Resident #70. The findings include: A review of the facility's infection control policy titled Standard Precautions, with a revision date of December 2007, revealed staff were required to change gloves and perform hand hygiene as necessary during care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination and when performing wound care and moving from a dirty site to a clean site. 1. A review of Resident #15's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Cerebral…
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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE — 67 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 66; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHC LP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2015 |
| ASBR HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2018 |
| JJLA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2015 |
| LPSNF LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2015 |
| WHEATEN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2015 |
| STEIER III, ELMER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2015 |
| MORGESON, MISTY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/05/2021 |
| HARRISON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2007 |
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 74% 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 $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 185052. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-24, 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.