Christian Health Center Corbin
116 South Commonwealth Avenue, Corbin, KY 40702 · Non profit - Other · 104 certified beds · (606) 258-2500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0609) — most recent Jan 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $181,590 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-19)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 fell from 5 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.4% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 6.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.6% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.7% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.1% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.5% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.5% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 29.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.05 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.30 | 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.
55.1% 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 82 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 36.1% 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 36 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% 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 | 55.1%CMS range 45.6–64.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 8.5–16.4 | 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 | 36.1% | 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 | 25.0% | 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 | 27.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — 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 | 3.9% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.4–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.23 | 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 91.8 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 12 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 4.12 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.92 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.52 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.33 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.61 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-01-19 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure that one (Resident (R) 93) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for abuse was free from abuse by another resident (R12). The facility was aware that R12 exhibited escalating behaviors toward staff and other residents, including entering other residents' rooms, physical sexual contact, and aggression since at least 08/2025. Despite documented identification of R12's ongoing behaviors, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to reflect the behaviors, so as to implement consistent behavioral interventions to protect other residents. On 01/05/2026, R12 touched and physically restrained R93 in her bed, causing R93 psychosocial harm with emotional distress and fear. The facility's failure to protect residents from abuse by promptly recognizing, assessing, and intervening to address known behaviors, resulted in Immediate Jeopardy as the deficient practice created a situation likely to cause serious harm…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-01-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and facility documentation, the facility failed to immediately report allegations and incidents of potential abuse, as well as injuries of unknown origin, to appropriate external authorities, including law enforcement and/or the State Survey Agency (SSA), in accordance with facility policy and federal regulations. This failure involved eight (Resident (R) 12, R19, R30, R67, R84, R87, R90, R93) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The failure to immediately report allegations as required included a witnessed incident on 01/05/2026 when R12, who had a history of sexual behaviors, physically restrained R93 in her bed, causing R93 psychosocial harm with emotional distress and fear. The facility's failure to immediately report all allegations of abuse resulted in Immediate Jeopardy as the deficient practice created a situation likely to cause serious harm to residents.Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 01/17/2026 at 42 CFR S483.12 (Freedom from Abuse, Neglect,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-01-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility's policies, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet resident-specific needs for one (Resident (R) 12) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The facility was aware that R12 exhibited escalating behaviors toward staff and other residents, including physical sexual contact and aggression, since at least 08/2025. Despite documented identification of these behaviors, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan which reflected the behaviors, reflected measurable goals, and included person-centered consistent behavioral interventions to protect other residents from R12's behaviors. Care planning for R12's behaviors did not occur until 01/09/2026, after an incident on 01/05/2026 where R12 touched and physically restrained R93 in her bed, causing R93 psychosocial harm with emotional distress and fear. The facility's failure to develop and implement a care plan to meet R12's behavioral needs resulted in Immediate Jeopardy as the deficient practice created a situation likely to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-01-19 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility's documents, the facility failed to ensure that it was administered in an effective manner to meet the needs of each resident, in the areas of developing/implementing care plans, freedom from abuse, and immediate reporting of alleged incidents of abuse. This failure affected two (Resident (R) 12 and R93) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The facility was aware that R12 exhibited escalating behaviors toward staff and other residents, including physical sexual contact and aggression, since at least 08/2025. Despite documented identification of these behaviors, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to protect residents from the potential for abuse. On 01/05/2026, R12 touched and physically restrained R93 in her bed, causing R93 psychosocial harm with emotional distress and fear. This allegation of abuse was immediately reported to administrative staff by the staff person who witnessed it. However, the Administrative staff then failed to identify the reported incident as an allegation of…
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 · E2026-01-19 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documentation and policies, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation in response to incidents of potential abuse and/or injuries of unknown origin involving six (Resident (R) 19, R30, R67, R84, R87, R90) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate alleged incidents and/or injuries of unknown origin so as to learn facts, determine if abuse had occurred, and identify actions to prevent the potential for further abuse.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse Reporting and Prevention, reviewed 07/2025, revealed that if abuse is reported by the resident, a full investigation of the allegation would be conducted by the Executive Director (ED), and/or designated facility staff. In addition, the policy noted that any resident injury of undetermined origin would be investigated in-house to rule out the possibility of physical abuse. Per the policy, as soon as possible, all information related to a report of abuse, et al, shall be obtained from all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-19 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure its residents were free from medication errors for 1 of 3 sampled residents, Resident (R)85.Following a medication observation with Registered Nurse (RN)2 it was determined she had crushed Pantoprazole 40 milligram (mg) Delayed Release (DR) tablet and an Isosorbide 30 mg Extended Release (ER) Tablet and administered them to R85. According to the pharmacy's instructions on the medication label, both medications should have been administered whole.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, effective date 08/2025 revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. Further review of the policy revealed medications would be administered in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and to crush medications as ordered. Do not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure all medications were labeled at a minimum of the medication's name (generic and/or brand), prescribed dose, strength, the expiration date when applicable, the resident's name, and route of administration; and include an opened date if indicated for three (3) of six (6) sampled medication carts and 1 of 2 sampled medication refrigerators. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medication and Biologicals dated as effective 12/01/2007 and revised on 06/30/2025 revealed the policy set forth procedures relating to the storage and expiration dates of medications, biologicals, syringes and needles.Additional review of the policy revealed the facility should ensure medications and biologicals that had an expired date on the label or had been retained longer than recommended by the manufacturer or supplier guidelines were stored separate from other medications until destroyed or returned to the pharmacy/supplier.Further review of the policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-19 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy the facility failed to 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. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy, titled Policy and Procedure: Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 04/01/2024, revealed droplet precautions referred to actions designed to reduce/prevent the transmission of pathogens spread through close respiratory or mucous membrane contact with respiratory secretions. Continued review of the policy revealed that anyone entering a resident's room in droplet precaution should perform hand hygiene and don (put on) a face mask. Additionally, if there was a substantial risk of exposure to mucous membranes or spraying of respiratory secretions, then personal protective equipment (PPE) should also include a gown, gloves, face shield, and/or…
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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it is determined the facility failed to evaluate Resident (R1) for the ability to safely self-administer medications for one of 31 sampled residents. During an observation on 3/10/2025 at 3:43 PM, an open bottle of prescribed Nystatin Powder (an antifungal medication that treats skin infections caused by yeast) was found on R1's bed. R1 stated she applied the medication herself throughout the day. However, facility staff found no documentation or assessment to indicate the interdisciplinary team had evaluated and determined R1's ability to safely self-administer medications. The findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications revised date 11/29/2022, revealed, It is the policy that allows residents who have been assessed by the interdisciplinary team upon admission, quarterly, and with change of condition as clinically appropriate to self-administer their own medications or medicated treatments. The policy further revealed that the medications must be kept in a locked area. A review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 allow a resident to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident (R) 1). The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident. Although R1 had not been assessed as an elopement risk and did not consent for wander guard placement, the facility placed a wander guard on R1 on 08/01/2024. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Policy and Procedure: Resident Rights, revised 09/29/2022, revealed residents have the right to be treated with respect and to be free from abuse and neglect. Continued review of the facility policy revealed nursing homes cannot keep a resident apart from everyone else against their will. Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/11/2024 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, essential (primary) hypertension, depression,…
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 · D2020-02-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The facility assessed Resident #8 to be at risk for elopement and was to wear a wander bracelet (a device worn that emits a sound when passed through an alarmed door). However, observations on 02/05/2020 revealed the resident was not wearing the bracelet as required. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Elopement, undated, revealed care plans for residents assessed to be at risk for elopement would include individualized interventions. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/21/2017 with diagnoses including Dementia, Age Related Cognitive Decline, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #8's Minimum Data Status (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$181,590 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $181,590 — penalty dated 2026-01-19
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-02-24 for 16 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHRISTIAN CARE COMMUNITIES, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 04/06/2013 |
| BELL, JILL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/09/2025 |
| CALLOWAY, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/29/2022 |
| HUGHES, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| STANLEY, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/09/2025 |
| WOODMANSEE, LELAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| SPALDING, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2016 |
| WOODS, JAMIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| LOVITT, JANET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/2025 |
| MORTON, STEVEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/31/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 71% 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 $685K 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 185232. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-19, 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.