VillaSpring of Erlanger
4220 Houston Road, Erlanger, KY 41018 · For profit - Corporation · 140 certified beds · (859) 727-6700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.7% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 6.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 50.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.6% | 29.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.5% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.7% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.1% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 1.94 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 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.
50.9% 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 153 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 76.4% 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 55 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% 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 | 50.9%CMS range 43.1–57.6 | 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 | 14.4%CMS range 11.1–17.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 76.4% | 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 | 65.5% | 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 | 61.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.9% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 5.0–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.16 | 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 140 beds and averages 133.8 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.42 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-11 · 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This had the potential to affect 131 of 132 current residents that received food from the kitchen.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Uniform - Dress Code, revised 01/2024, revealed hair and beard nets must be worn by kitchen staff.1. Observation on 09/09/2025 at 9:28 AM revealed Food Service Worker (FSW) 1 had both sides of her hair, approximately three inches, not contained in the hairnet.During an immediate interview with FSW1 at the time of the observation she stated she received education involving how to wear hairnets and all hair was to be covered.2. Observation on 09/09/2025 at 9:47 AM revealed the Executive Chef had her front bangs, approximately two inches, not contained in the hairnet.During an immediate interview with the Executive Chef at the time of the observation she stated the facility policy was all hair should be covered. She stated her front bangs were not covered because she was…
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 · Fcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's policies, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidlines related to enhanced-barrier precautions (EBP) and transmission-based precautions (TBP), the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and control the development and transmission of communicable diseases for 4 out of 27 sampled residents (Residents (R) 5, R20, R65, and R86) 1. Observation on 09/09/2025 revealed the Medical Records Supervisor failed to remove her gloves or perform hand hygiene before leaving a resident's room after handling trash and walked through the hallway with gloved hands and opened the dirty utility room door with contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE).2. Observation on 09/09/2025 revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 3 entered room [ROOM NUMBER], an EBP room, then exited the room without…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 2 of 27 sampled residents (Resident (R) 2 and R20).Observation during lunch service on 09/09/2025 revealed the Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA) was standing between R2 and R20 while assisting them with eating lunch.Additional observation during lunch service on 09/09/2025 revealed the Nurse Practitioner (NP) approached R20, who was seated at a table eating lunch with R20, to obtain vital signs from the resident while she was eating. The findings include:Review of facility policy titled, Resident Rights, undated, revealed the resident shall be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his dignity and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his personal needs. 1. Review of R2's admission Record revealed the facility…
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 · D2025-09-11 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipts and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation; and failed to determine drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 out of 27 sampled residents (Resident (R) 101). Review of the Controlled Drug Receipt Record/Disposition Form for the 2100 Hall medication cart on 09/11/2025 revealed an incorrect count for R101's pregabalin 50 milligram (mg) capsules.Review of the Narcotic Shift Count sheet for the 2200 Hall medication cart on 09/11/2025 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 failed to sign the Narcotic Shift Count sheet as the oncoming nurse. Review of the Narcotic Shift Count sheet for the 2100 Hall medication cart on 09/11/2025 revealed LPN3 failed to sign the Narcotic Shift Count sheet as the oncoming nurse. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Controlled Drug Reconciliation, revised 06/2025,…
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 before2025-09-11 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to label and store medications in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 2 out 27 sampled residents (Resident (R) 94 and R103).During an observation of the 1300 Hall medication cart on 09/11/2025, a medicine cup containing R94's opened medications was found in the drawer. The medications were documented as given.During an observation of the 2100 Hall medication cart on 09/11/2025, a medicine cup containing R103's opened medications was found in the drawer. The medications were documented as given. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration Oral Medication, revised 11/2024, revealed the facility ensured residents were given medications per the physician's orders. The policy stated medications are given at the time ordered.Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage, revised 04/2024, revealed medications and biologicals for each resident are stored in the containers in which they were originally received.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 · Ecited before2024-10-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the manufacturer's instructions for use, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control measures to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 5 residents sampled for transmission- based precautions (Resident (R) 36 and R107) and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for use of sit-to-stand mechanical lifts (R21). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control: Transmission Based Precautions, dated 9/2024, revealed the facility was to implement contact precautions for residents known or suspected to be infected with microorganisms that could be transmitted by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment. Further review revealed infections indicating use of contact precautions included multi-drug resistant organisms. Per the policy, staff was to wear gloves and gown for interactions that involved contact with the resident. Review of the facility's policy titled,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions. Observation on 08/14/19 of the second floor Unit 2 dining room, revealed Dietary Aide #5 held four (4) saucer plates against her clothing and put her ungloved thumb and other fingers into the middle and over the rim of the saucers prior to placing the saucers into the middle of the table. In addition, observation on 08/14/19, revealed Dietary Staff #4 was wearing gloves while talking on a cell phone and did not wash hands and change gloves after putting the phone away and prior to continuing to work in the kitchenette. Furthermore, observation of the second floor kitchenette on 08/14/19, revealed Dietary Aide #1 was working during tray service from 5:08 PM to 6:15 PM, without wearing a beard net to cover his beard. Dietary #1 was also observed to use gloved hands to pull up and readjust his scrub top; however, failed to wash hands and don new gloves prior to continuing to work in the kitchenette. The findings include: 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 · D2019-08-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the accuracy and completion of Section K of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #94). Review of Resident #94's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/19/19, Section K0300, revealed the facility assessed the resident as not having a weight loss of ten percent (10%) or more in the last six (6) months; however, record review of the resident's weights revealed the resident sustained an 18% weight loss during the 180 day look back period between 12/06/19 and 06/04/19. In addition, review of Resident #94's Significant Change MDS Assessment, dated 07/17/19, Section K0300, revealed the facility assessed the resident as not having a weight loss of ten percent (10%) or more in the last six (6) months; however, record review of the resident's weights revealed the resident sustained a 15.50 % weight loss during the 180 day look back period…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-15 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible. Observation on 08/13/19 and 08/14/19, revealed an opened tube of Ammonium Lactate Cream 12% ( moisturizer for dry itchy skin) and an opened tube of Remedy Antifungal Cream 2% (Miconazole Nitrate) on the bedside table in Resident #46's room accessible to residents and visitors. In addition, staff interviews revealed Resident #17 was confused and ambulatory and wandered into and out of resident rooms. The findings include: Review of the facility's Medication Storage Policy, dated 08/2018, revealed medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are securely stored in a secured locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible to residents and visitors. Review of Resident #46's clinical revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/23/19 with diagnosis to include Major Depression, Chronic Pain, Type 2 Diabetes, and Dementia. Review of Resident #13's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-15 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drug irregularities reported by Pharmacy were acted on for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #94). Resident #94 was prescribed Lorazepam (antianxiety medication) PRN (as needed) on 03/18/19 with no end date; however, there was no documented rationale for extending the medication beyond fourteen (14) days nor was there documentation stating the duration for the PRN order. On 04/19/19, the Physician responded to the Consultation Report from Pharmacy documenting the duration was indefinite and the rationale was hospice patient. On 06/03/19, the Consultation Report from the Pharmacist Consultant stated the SOM (State Operations Manual) required a duration of therapy even for hospice patients and indefinite was not allowed per CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) guidelines. However, there was no indication of the Physician's choice to either accept, decline, or modify the recommendations. This Report was not signed or dated by the Physician and there was no documented evidence…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-15 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure PRN (as needed) orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to fourteen (14) days, unless the Physician documents the rationale for extending the order and documents the duration of the PRN order for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #94). Resident #94 was prescribed Lorazepam (antianxiety medication) PRN on 03/18/19 with no end date; however, there was no documented evidence of the rationale for extending the medication beyond fourteen (14) days nor was there documented evidence of the duration for the PRN order. On 04/19/19, the Physician responded to the Consultation Report from Pharmacy stating the duration was indefinite and the rationale was hospice patient. However, indefinite was not an acceptable duration for the PRN order. There was no further duration for the medication documented after subsequent requests from pharmacy. The Physician's Order for the PRN Lorazepam continued until 08/07/19. (Refer to F-756) The findings include: Review of the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-15 · 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 facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #46). Observation on 08/13/19 and 08/14/19, revealed Resident #46 had an opened tube of Ammonium Lactate Cream 12% ( moisturizer for dry itchy skin) and an opened tube of Remedy Antifungal Cream 2% (Miconazole Nitrate) on the bedside table in his/her room. The findings include: Review of the facility's Medication Storage Policy, dated 08/2018, revealed medications and biologicals including treatment items are securely stored in a secured locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible to residents and visitors. Review of Resident #46's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/23/19 with diagnoses to include Major Depression, Chronic Pain, Type 2 Diabetes, and Dementia. The facility assessed Resident #13, in an Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/10/19, as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a thirteen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARESPRING — 16 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/2013 |
| BARRY N BORTZ 06042009 TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 72% | since 10/01/2013 |
| BORTZ FAMILY IRREVOCABLE T/A | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/01/2014 |
| EPPERS, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 15% | since 10/01/2013 |
| REILLY, AMBER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/24/2020 |
| CHIRUMBOLO, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/28/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $928K 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 185447. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.