Fordsville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
313 Main Street, Fordsville, KY 42343 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 67 certified beds · (270) 276-3603 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2023
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 held steady at 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 | 15.6% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.0% | 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 | 2.1% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.7% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 47.8% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.2% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.4% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 35.3% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.6% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 25.1% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.13 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.43 | 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 67 beds and averages 59.9 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2023-08-05 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (2) of fifty-five sampled residents (Residents #46, and #16). Resident #46 has a persistent rash with a diagnosis of scabies. Observation on 08/05/2023, revealed Certified Nursing Assistant #22 and Registered Nurse (RN) #2 failed to don Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when providing direct care to Resident #16 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Control, revised October 2018, revealed the facility would maintain a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. The facility would prevent, detect, investigate, and control infections within the facility and establish guidelines for implementing…
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 · D2023-08-05 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 ensure a resident who was assessed to be mentally incapacitated had his/her Advance Directive information given to and signed by his/her Resident Representative for one (1) of three (3) residents sampled for closed records (Resident #214). Closed record review revealed on 05/25/2023, Resident #211 signed his/her own Kentucky Emergency Medical Services Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Consent. Further review of Resident 214's Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/15/2023, revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Advance Directive Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed resident's had the right to formulate an Advance Directive and to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment. The facility would periodically assess the resident for decision making abilities and approach the health care proxy or legal representative if the resident 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 · D2023-08-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for five (5) of five (5) residents' sampled rooms. Observations on 07/31/2023 through 08/04/2023, revealed multiple resident rooms had peeling wallpaper, chipped paint, and damaged walls (Rooms 3-A, 21-A, 28-B, 31-A and 37-A). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Homelike Environment Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020 revealed the facility would provide residents with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. The facility should maximize, to the extent possible, characteristics of the facility to reflect a personalized, homelike setting that should include cleanliness and order. 1. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]-A on 07/31/23 at 10:40 AM, revealed the wallpaper was peeling from the seams. 2. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]-B on 08/01/23 at 8:44 AM, revealed chipped and peeling paint on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to expired medications were removed from the medication refrigerators, per the facility's policy for one (1) of two (2) medication refrigerators. Observation a medication refrigerator on 08/03/2023, revealed expired medications for Resident's #35 and #32 were stored in the refrigerator. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Label/Store Drugs & Biologicals Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed drugs and biologicals must be labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the expiration date when applicable. Further review revealed expired and/or discontinued medication shall be removed from the medication storage area for timely return to pharmacy and/or documented destruction. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Administration Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed expired/beyond use date medication should not be administered.…
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 · D2023-08-05 · 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
Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents from physical abuse for four (4) of fifty-five (55) sampled residents (Residents #36, #49, #50, and #213). On 01/15/2023, staff responded to an incident of Resident #213 striking Resident #50 on the face, in the common area. On 10/02/2022, staff had reported witnessing Resident #49 touching Resident #36's chest area above his/her clothing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice, dated 07/2022, revealed the facility would prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation or resident property and ensure reporting and investigating of alleged violations, mistreatment and involuntary seclusion in accordance with Federal and State laws. 1 (a). Review of closed record revealed the facility admitted Resident #213 on 12/09/2022 with diagnoses which included include Vascular Dementia, Altered Mental Status Unspecified, and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of Resident #213's Quarterly Minimum…
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 before2023-08-05 · 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
Based on interview, record review, review of facility policy, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to review and revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (1) of fifty-five (55) sampled residents (Resident #49). Record review revealed Resident #49's care plan was not revised after he/she exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviors on 10/02/2022, 10/25/2022, and 10/26/2022. The findings include: Review of the RAI Manual, Section 4.7 The RAI and Care Planning, dated 10/2019, revealed the care plan should be revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care that the resident required. Review of the facility's policy, Comprehensive Care Plans Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed an individualized comprehensive care plan should include objectives and timetables to meet the residents medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs, were to be developed for each resident. Assessments of residents were ongoing and care plans were revised as information about the resident and 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 · D2022-05-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's polices and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan with measurable objectives to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for three (3) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Residents #5, #21 and #41). Resident #5 sustained twenty-six (26) falls from 05/01/2021 to 05/01/2022. The facility failed to follow the resident's Care Plan to ensure the resident was assisted as he/she ambulated throughout the facility. On 06/19/2021, Resident #5 sustained a fall and was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED). This fall resulted in a laceration on the back on his/her head which measured 2.4 centimeters (cm) by 1.3 cm. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the resident was monitored every fifteen minutes and had on appropriate shoes at all times. Review of the incident reports revealed Resident #21…
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 before2022-05-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan for residents with measurable objectives to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for two (2) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident's #5 and #6). The facility failed to update Resident #5's care plan after the resident fell on [DATE], 06/01/2021, 08/10/2021, 10/08/2021, 11/09/2021, and 03/11/2022, to reflect the interventions staff implemented on the resident's fall report. The facility failed to update Resident #6's care plan with a tab alarm after the resident had a fall on 12/31/2021. Resident #5 sustained a fall on 05/10/2021, 06/01/2021, 08/10/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 11/09/2021, 12/02/2021, 12/09/2021, 02/18/2022, 03/11/2022, and 04/25/2022. The facility failed to revise the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) to establish interventions for each of the noted falls. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-06 · 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 review of the facility's policy it was determined the facility failed to provide the needed care and services to ensure the residents met the highest practical physical, mental and psychosocial needs for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #41). The findings include: Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #41, on 01/17/2020 with diagnoses which included: Other Secondary Parkinsonism, Contracture, Unspecified joint, and Cerebral Palsy, Unspecified. Review of Resident #41 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/01/2020, revealed the facility assessed Resident #41's cognition as impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3), which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Review of Section G: Functional Status, revealed the facility assessed the resident as totally dependent for care. Review of Resident #41's care plan revealed the resident was to wear Thera Carrots (a device placed in the palm Review of Resident #41's care plan, revealed the resident…
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 · D2022-05-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide supervision to ensure an environment free from accidents and hazards for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #5). Review of Resident #5's Electronic Medical Record revealed since 05/01/2021 to 05/01/2022, the resident had twenty-six (26) falls and eighteen (18) of those falls were unwitnessed. Additionally, most of the falls occurred when the resident attempted to go to the bathroom. Resident #5 sustained an injury to his/her head on 06/19/2021 from an unwitnessed fall which resulted in a laceration of two-point four (2.4) centimeters (cm) by one-point three (1.3) cm on the back of his/her head. The facility sent Resident #5 to the Emergency Department (ED). Resident #5 sustained another fall with injury on 04/17/2022 which resulted in a fractured finger. The resident's finger was splinted. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls…
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 · D2022-05-06 · 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, review of the facility's policy and the ProView Assure Glucometer User's Guide, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a glucometer meter was calibrated per the manufacturer's guidelines for one (1) of two (2) hallways, the Harmony Hall. Record review revealed the Harmony Hall Glucose Quality Control (QC) Log, dated April 2022, was missing the glucose control testing results from April 11, 2022, through April 20, 2022. Furthermore, the facility did not provide the Harmony Hall QC Log for March 2022 after it was requested. The manufacture's guidelines revealed the QC testing was to be completed weekly. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 05/05/2022 at 1:00 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy for glucometer monitoring or calibration. The DON stated the facility used the manufacturer's guideline for testing. Review of the ProView Assure Glucometer User's Guide, undated, revealed the facility should perform QC solution tests weekly, with a new bottle of strips; and, a new meter, if…
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 before2022-05-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an open vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) serum used for the tuberculin skin test (TST) for Tuberculosis (TB) screening for residents and staff was labeled with an open date. Observations revealed one (1) of three (3) vials of PPD serum was opened and undated in the Foxes Drive Hall's medication refrigerator. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Tuberculosis, Employee Screening, revised [DATE], revealed all employees were screened for latent TB infection and active TB disease using the tuberculin skin test (TST) and symptom screening. Review of the facility's policy, Tuberculosis, Screening Residents, revised [DATE], revealed the facility screened all residents for TB infection and TB disease. The resident, who may have been exposed to TB or was at increased risk for TB infections would be screened using the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BENJAMIN LANDA — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLATSCHEK, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 09/01/2018 |
| PLATSCHEK, GOLDIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 09/01/2018 |
| RUBENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 09/01/2018 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| FELITSKY, KRISTY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/14/2023 |
| SHEPARD, PAUL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| BLAIR, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| KELMAN, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| RAYMER, MYRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/10/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 91% 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 $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 185354. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-05, 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.