Danville Centre for Health & Rehabilitation
642 North Third Street, Danville, KY 40422 · For profit - Corporation · 106 certified beds · (859) 236-3972 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607, F0610) — most recent Feb 2022
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,444 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-24)
- 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) | 3 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 improved from 1 to 2 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 | 14.8% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 54.8% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.8% | 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 | 91.1% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.2% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
41.2% 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 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.9% 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 21 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 41.2%CMS range 31.2–51.9 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.3–15.2 | 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 | 61.9% | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 42.9% | 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 | 97.2% | 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 | 2.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.8–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 106 beds and averages 91.3 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
18 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-01-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan for one (Resident (R) 2) of 14 sampled residents was implemented. R2 was assessed upon admission to be at risk for elopement and was care planned with the goal of not leaving the facility without staff supervision. On [DATE], R2 eloped from the facility without staff knowledge when the resident's care planned wander guard (door alarm system used to alert staff of resident's attempts to leave the facility) was not functioning and staff failed to provide additional monitoring, supervision, and/or interventions to prevent the resident from exiting the facility. The facility's failure to ensure the implementation of resident-centered care plans, with interventions to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent elopement, constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ), which is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. The findings…
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 · J2025-01-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate monitoring and supervision to prevent elopements for one (Resident (R) 2) of four sampled residents reviewed for elopement risk out of a total sample of 14 residents. On [DATE], R2 exited the facility without staff knowledge during a time period in which the facility's wander guard system (door alarm system used to alert staff of a resident's attempts to leave the facility) was not functioning. The facility's failure to have an effective system to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent elopements caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Safety and Supervision of Residents, dated [DATE], revised [DATE], and in effect at the time of the [DATE] elopement, revealed the facility was to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-02-24 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure four (4) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #10, Resident #67, Resident #174, and Resident #175), who were all cognitively impaired and lacked the capacity to consent to sexual relations, were protected from sexual abuse. In addition, it was determined the facility failed to protect two (2) of six (6) sampled residents (Resident #37 and Resident #174) from physical abuse. 1.Review of the facility's investigation documentation revealed on 12/06/2021, Resident #174 and Resident #10 were found by staff in Resident #10's room. Both residents were observed to have their pants down to mid-thigh, and Resident #10 had his/her hand on Resident #174's thigh. Resident #10 was placed on one (1) to one (1) supervision; however, the facility failed to ensure Resident #174 was provided increased supervision for his/her safety and the safety of other residents. 2. Review of the facility's investigation…
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 · J2022-02-24 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure its abuse policy was implemented for two (2) of thirty-five sampled residents, Resident #67 and #175. Interview with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #3 revealed that on 01/15/2022, Housekeeper #2 came to her and reported that she needed to come to the room of Resident #175. KMA #3 stated when she entered the room, Resident #67 and Resident #175 were engaged in sexual intercourse. Housekeeper #2 failed to stay with the residents to protect the residents from abuse and therefore failed to implement the abuse policy. The facility's failure to ensure that established policies and procedures were followed when allegations of abuse occurred has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/12/2022 and determined to exist on 12/06/2021 at 42 CFR 483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation (F600, F607, 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-02-24 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate three (3) allegations of sexual abuse involving four (4) of thirty (35) sampled residents (Resident #10, Resident #74, Resident #174 and Resident #175) to ensure appropriate action was taken to protect residents and prevent further sexual abuse/potential sexual abuse. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/06/2021, revealed Resident #174 and Resident #10 were found in Resident #10's room. Resident #10's pants were down to mid-thigh, as well as, Resident #174's pants down to mid-thigh. Resident #10 had his/her hand on Resident #174's thigh. Further review of the facility investigation revealed no root cause analysis was conducted following the incident and the facility failed to identify Resident #174's increased wandering as a potential factor in the incident. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/27/2021, revealed Resident #174 was found by staff behind the door in…
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 · J2022-02-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy it was determined the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered comprehensive care plan for four (4) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #10, Resident #37, Resident #67, Resident #174 and Resident #175). Record review and interview revealed Resident #37, Resident #67, Resident #174, and Resident #175 had displayed behaviors that put them at risk for abuse and had care plans in place for behavioral problems. Review of the facility's investigation revealed, on 12/06/2021, Resident #174 and Resident #10 were found in Resident #10's room with Resident #10's pants down to mid-thigh. Resident #174's pants were down to mid-thigh and Resident #10 had his/her hand on Resident #174's thigh. Further review of the care plans for Resident #10 and Resident #174 revealed no evidence the care plan was revised after the incident to prevent further incidents. Review of the facility's Incident Report dated 12/21/2021, revealed Kentucky…
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 · J2022-02-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of the Administrator's Job Description, and review of the facility's policies and procedures, it was determined the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and protect its residents from abuse/potential abuse. The facility's Administration failed to ensure residents were free from abuse; failed to ensure its abuse policies were implemented; failed to ensure thorough investigations of abuse allegation incidents were conducted; and, failed to implement residents' Comprehensive Care Plans (CPs) for four (4) of four (4) allegations of resident abuse. (Refer to F600, F607, F610, and F656) The facility's failure to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to protect its residents from abuse/potential abuse, has caused or is likely to cause…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-04 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician and notify the resident's representative when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status or a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 6 sampled residents, Resident (R) 1. The facility failed to administer R1's scheduled monthly invega sustenna injection (an antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia) on 04/19/2026. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the resident's physician or guardian at the time of the missed medication. R1 had increased behaviors in April and May 2026, which resulted in multiple transfers to the local hospital, and an admission to the state psychiatric facility from 05/08/2026 until 05/21/2026. R1 was last admitted to the local hospital's behavioral unit related to psychotic behaviors and psychosis on 05/31/2026 and remained in the hospital during the Survey.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2026-06-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide routine drugs to its residents as ordered or obtain them for one (1) of six (6) sampled residents, Resident (R) 1. The facility failed to administer R1's scheduled monthly invega sustenna injection (an antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia) on 04/19/2026 and did not promptly notify the pharmacy that the medication was unavailable. R1 did not receive his scheduled invega sustenna injection until 05/06/2026, 17 days later, resulting in increased behaviors in April and May 2026. R1 was admitted to the state psychiatric facility from 05/08/2026 until 05/21/2026. Additionally, on 05/31/2026, R1 was admitted to the local hospital's behavioral unit related to psychotic behaviors and psychosis and remained there during the Survey.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 07/2018, revealed medications were administered as prescribed in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-21 · 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
The facility failed to ensure staff followed infection prevention and control practices during wound care for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 8 and Resident 6) of 22 sampled residents reviewed for wound care. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement its infection prevention and control program by not ensuring licensed nurses performed required hand hygiene and glove changes during wound care. This deficient practice placed 2 of 21 sampled residents (Residents R6 and R8) at risk for cross-contamination, wound deterioration, and increased infection.The findings include:Review of the facility's Hand Hygiene Policy, dated 06/27/2025, revealed that staff were to perform hand hygiene before and after resident contact, before performing aseptic tasks, after removing gloves, and whenever hands were visibly soiled. The policy further revealed that proper hand hygiene was required to minimize transmission of infectious agents and reduce healthcare-associated infections.Review of the facility's Skin Integrity Policy, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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
Based on observation, interviews, and a review of facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights, last revision 01/31/2025, revealed all residents will be treated in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life. Review of the facility's policy titled Safe Environment, last revision 06/17/2025, revealed the facility will ensure in-house maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry services are provided daily to maintain a safe, comfortable, and clean environment for its residents, stakeholders, and visitors. Observations on 08/19/2025 at 12:50 PM in resident common areas revealed peeling paint on the walls, peeling paint on the ceiling, rust on ceiling vents, the door to the Reflections Unit severely scuffed and scratched, baseboards throughout the facility scuffed and scratched, handrails throughout the facility scuffed and chipped, and paint…
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 before2022-02-24 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to notify the Physician when a change occurred in a resident, and there was a need to alter the resident's treatment for one of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #18). Resident #18 had orders to notify the physician when the resident's blood glucose level was greater than 400 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). However, the facility failed to notify the resident's physician on 11/17/2021, 12/18/2021, 01/01/2022, 01/04/2022, and on 02/08/2022, when Resident #18's blood glucose level was elevated above 400 mg/dl. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Change of Condition, revised 11/06/2019, revealed the facility was to evaluate and document changes in a resident's physical and/or mental health, or psychosocial status. Further review revealed staff were to effectively relay information to the Physician when there was a need to alter treatment. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed the facility re-admitted the resident on 01/18/2021,…
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 before2022-02-24 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Care Plan for one (1) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #18). The facility had developed a plan of care for Resident #18 related to Diabetes Mellitus. Interventions to be followed by staff included notifying the resident's physician when his/her blood glucose level was above 401 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). However, on five (5) occasions from 11/17/2021 through 02/08/2022, the resident's blood glucose was above 401 mg/dl, but staff failed to follow the resident's plan of care and did not notify the resident's physician. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, revised 07/19/2018, revealed care plan interventions were implemented after consideration of the resident's problem areas and their causes. The interventions will be actions, treatments, or procedures to meet the objectives toward achieving resident goals. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed the facility re-admitted 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 · D2022-02-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received care and treatment in accordance with accepted standards of practice to treat and prevent adverse events related to Hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) for one (1) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #18). Resident #18's Blood glucose levels were elevated above 400 mg/dl (normal range below 125) on 11/17/2021, 12/18/2021, 01/04/2022 and on 02/08/2022. However, there was no evidence found to indicate that the resident's condition was monitored after the levels were obtained, that staff rechecked the resident's glucose levels, or called the resident's physician to obtain further orders for evaluation and treatment of the resident's condition. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Aspects of Care, undated, revealed medical services would be provided for all residents in a manner to achieve and maintain optimal standards of quality of care and professional services. The policy further revealed clinical services…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-04-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to store, prepare and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation of the Kitchen during initial tour on 04/09/19, revealed the PM April 2019 cleaning schedule was not initialed to indicate the Cook, Dessert Aide and the Drink Aide had performed cleaning duties. In addition, the cook was observed to use the incorrect sanitizer test strips to test the sanitizer for the pot and pan sink. Also, the fryer oil appeared dark black to brown in color with food particles floating on the surface. Further, there were five (5) sheet pans on an open rack in the kitchen which had cereal crumbs on top; and the open rack had pans which were stored on the lowest shelf, less than six (6) inches from the floor. Also, the plastic pitcher utilized as an ice scoop for the ice chest had been placed inside the ice chest on top of the ice. Additionally, the kitchen refrigerator doors had dried food particles and the outside of the juice machine appeared to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-04-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policies and procedures, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals. Observation on 04/09/19 of the Medication Storage room for the Recovery Hall, revealed the room was unorganized and cluttered with supplies and boxes of liquid supplement and tube feeding haphazardly stored and totes of discontinued medications sitting directly on the floor. Also the Recovery Medication Cart #1, had sticky liquid medication bottles with medication running down the sides of each bottle, and the labels and bottles were discolored. The cart also contained one (1) Ventolin HFA Inhaler, ninety (90) micrograms (mcg) which had been removed from the foil overwrap and had no open date; one (1) Symbicort Inhaler, 164.5 mcg which was in use with no open date; one (1) Breo Ellipta (fluticasome - furoate and vilanterol Inhaler, 125 mcg which was in use with no open date; and one (1) bottle of Assure Normal Control Solution and one (1)…
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 before2019-04-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to follow standard precautions to prevent the spread of infection for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents (Resident #13). Observation of the lunch meal service, on 04/09/19, revealed a State Registered Nurse Assistant (SRNA) handled Resident #13's sandwich with her bare hands. The findings include: Review of the facility Hand Washing Policy, undated, revealed staff were to wash hands prior to working with food substances. Additionally, gloves were to be worn when working with food to avoid contact with hands. Further review of the Policy, revealed gloves were to be worn when touching any ready to eat food. Observation of SRNA #1, on 04/09/19 at 12:19 PM, during lunch meal service, revealed SRNA #1 failed to perform hand hygiene and don gloves prior to handling Resident #13's ready to eat sandwich. Interview with SRNA #1, on 04/09/19 at 12:25 PM, revealed she had received training related to hand washing and hand hygiene related to food handling, and was aware of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2019-04-11 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post the following information: facility name, current date, the total number and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift, on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift, in a clear and readable format, and in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Observations 04/09/19 through 04/11/19, revealed facility Nurse Staffing information was not posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Posting of Nursing Staffing, undated, revealed Skilled Nursing Facilities are required to post, on a daily basis, the actual hours of and total number of hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff who are directly responsible for resident care on each shift in the facility. Additionally, on a daily basis, at the beginning of the shift, the facility must have posted or available for review the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$12,444 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $5,944 — penalty dated 2025-01-24
- $6,500 — penalty dated 2025-01-24
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 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 KY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2014 |
| 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 04/01/2014 |
| LPSNF LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2014 |
| SHC LP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2014 |
| WHEATEN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2014 |
| STEIER III, ELMER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2014 |
| MOORE, GENE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/24/2024 |
| HARRISON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2014 |
6 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 70% 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 $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185127. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, 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.