Franklin-Simpson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
414 Robey Street, Franklin, KY 42135 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 98 certified beds · (270) 586-7141 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 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 abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0610) — most recent Feb 2019
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.0% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.7% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.8% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.4% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.5% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.0% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.8% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.91 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.84 | 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.
46.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 29% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | 46.1%CMS range 25.9–62.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.0%CMS range 7.9–16.9 | 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 | 95.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.3% | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 3.8–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 98 beds and averages 84.0 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 2.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.24 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2019-02-15 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from abuse, neglect and corporal punishment of any type by anyone for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #67). Interviews with Resident #67 on 02/12/19 revealed during the night shift on 02/11/19, he/she asked a staff member to put a pillow behind his/her head and the staff member threw the pillow at him/her, hitting him/her in the face. Resident #67 stated the staff threatened the resident that he/she would remain in the facility longer for asking for help. Resident #67 stated this treatment caused him/her to be fearful and sad. In addition, the resident was sent to the hospital due to increased anxiety after attempting to identify the alleged perpetrator by looking at pictures of staff and staff walking by his/her room. The findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standards of Practice, last revised September 2016, revealed each resident has the right to be free from verbal,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2019-02-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse, or mistreatment while an investigation was is in progress by failing to suspend the alleged perpetrator for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #67). On 02/12/19, Resident #67 alleged he/she was abused by staff on the night shift on 02/11/19, but Resident #67 was unable to identify the staff by their name. On 02/14/19, Resident #67 stated the staff came into his/her room on the evening of 02/13/19 and he/she identified the staff as State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #3. On the morning of 02/14/19, Resident #67 and Surveyors reported this information to the Administrator; however, the Administrator failed to suspend or remove SRNA #3 from care while the allegation was investigated, The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Or Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy, last revised 03/10/17, revealed under section VI. Protection, in order to provide protection to the resident during an…
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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on 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 promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality, for four (4) of 20 sampled Residents (R) (R11, R28, R32, R67) who were unable to freely go outside and one Resident (R32) who had a wander guard in place with no attempts to elope from facility. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Standard of Practice, dated April of 2024, revealed residents had the right to interact with members of the community and participate in activities both inside and outside of the facility. 1.Review of R11's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/11/2023 with diagnoses which included anxiety disorder and coronary artery disease. Review of R11's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE],…
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 before2021-05-20 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the care plan was followed related to the dietary needs of two (2) of eighteen (18) sampled residents. (Resident #66 and Resident #40) Observation during lunch meal pass on 05/18/2021, Resident #40 and #66 did not have fortified mashed potatoes. Review of care plan interventions for both Resident #40 and #60 interventions directed staff to provide diet as ordered. Additionally, Resident #66 meal ticket required (2) two cartons of milk that were observed to not be on the tray of Resident #66 during meal service. The Findings include: Interview on 05/20/2021 at 4:05 PM, with Administrator, revealed the facility did not have policies or guidelines concerning physician orders, dietary needs or following of care plans for residents. However, the Administrator stated the facility followed the standard of practice for care from Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). Review of provided Clinical…
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 · D2021-05-20 · 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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 483.45(g) review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for one (1) of the facility's two (2) medication rooms. On [DATE], observation of the medication room on the 200 Hall revealed a Levemir (insulin) pen and Bromfed (antihistamine, cough suppressant, decongestant) liquid were opened. However, the drugs were not dated when opened. Interview with the Administrator revealed the facility did not have a policy for storage and labeling of drugs and biologicals. The findings include: Review of the CFR titled, 483.45(g) Labeling of Drugs and Biologicals and §483.45(h) Storage of Drugs and Biologicals revealed the facility staff should date the label of any multi-use vial when the vial was first accessed and access the vial in a dedicated medication preparation area. If a multi-dose vial had been opened or accessed, the vial should be…
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 · D2021-05-20 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a well-balanced diet to meet the dietary needs of for two (2) of eighteen (18) sampled residents, Resident # 66 and #40 During lunch meal pass on 05/18/2021, Resident #40 and #66 did not have fortified mashed potatoes per the Meal Ticket, physician order, or care plan. Additionally, Resident #66's Meal Ticket required (2) two cartons of milk to be provided, however, they were not on Resident #66's tray. The Findings include: Interview on 05/20/2021 at 4:05 PM, with the Administrator, revealed the facility did not have for policies or guidelines concerning physician orders, dietary needs or following of care plans for residents. However, the facility does follow the standard of practice for care from Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). Review of the Comprehensive Care Plans Standard of Practice, with revision date of 11/2017, revealed it was the practice of the facility to develop and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-02-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was Stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Kitchen observations on 02/12/19, revealed open, unsealed foods being stored in the freezer, dirty kitchen equipment and staff sanitation concerns. Review of Census and Condition dated 02/12/19 revealed eighty-two (82) of eighty-six (86) resident receive there meals from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. Review of facility policy titled Food Storage: Cold Foods, revised 4/2018, revealed all foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. Observation of the kitchen on 02/12/19 at 09:29 AM, revealed in the three (3) door freezer multiple break apart beef steak slices were laying in the freezer open to air uncovered with no wrapping or container in place and a plastic bag of bread rolls were present with no labeling or dating noted on the bag. 2. Review of facility policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-02-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team ongoing with any changes pertinent to the residents' care needs, for five (5) residents (Residents #20, #21, #32, #36, and #71), in the selected sampled of twenty-five (25). Resident #32 had a history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) and had an indwelling urinary catheter. He/she was hospitalized on [DATE] with diagnoses of UTI and Sepsis. However, the comprehensive care plan did not reflect a history of UTIs or Sepsis. Resident #20 had an appointment for cataract surgery on 02/19/18. However, the resident refused to go to the appointment stating I'm not having surgery. The comprehensive care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's preferences related to cataract surgery. Residents #21, #36, and #71 have all had multiple falls in the facility over the course of the last six (6) months. However, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-02-15 · 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 review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents with respect and dignity and care for the resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing the resident's individuality (Resident #36). Resident #36 was resistive to care when staff identified the resident had food on his/her shirt and face after eating his/her meal; however, staff failed to provide a second attempt to clean the resident's face and change shirt for over and hour later and failed to follow facility protocol of having another staff attempt to clean the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights, not dated, revealed the resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. The resident has the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Record review revealed the facility admitted…
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 · D2019-02-15 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolatedHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and facility Resident Rights review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents, the right to have reasonable access to visit his/her son at the facility (Resident #48). The findings include: Review of the facility copy of Resident Rights, not dated, revealed the resident has a right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing. Review of the facility document titled, Resident Right - Inform of Visitation Rights/Equal Visitation Privileges, revealed it is the policy of the facility to inform residents and resident representatives of visitation rights and privileges in such a manner to acknowledge and respect resident rights. Further review of the document revealed the procedures that the facility will meet were as follows: 1. Inform each resident (or resident representative, where appropriate) of his or her visitation rights and related facility policy and procedures, including any clinical or safety restriction or limitation on such rights, consistent…
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 · D2019-02-15 · 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, record review, review of facility policy, and housekeeping inservice training, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was sanitary for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #17). Observation of Resident #17's bathroom on 02/12/19 and on 02/13/19, revealed the commode had dried, crusted fecal matter smeared all over the commode seat and commode bowl in the same areas for the two (2) consecutive days. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled Complete Room Clean Checklist, not dated, revealed the residents' bathrooms were to be cleaned, including the commode, bath tubs, walls and floors. Review of the facility's Housekeeping In-service training for housekeeping employees titled 7-Step Daily Washroom Cleaning, dated 1/1/2000, revealed step five (5) was to clean and sanitized the commode which includes the commode tank, the seat, the bowl and the base. Record review, revealed the facility admitted Resident #17 to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-02-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident had a person-centered comprehensive care plan that was developed and/or implemented to meet the residents' preferences and goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #20). Resident #20 was prescribed Plavix 75 milligrams (mg) (anti-platelet) and Aspirin 325 mg daily. However, there was no documented evidence a care plan was initiated to monitor resident for complications of the medications. In addition, the resident had an uncontrolled nosebleed and was sent to the emergency room on [DATE]; however, the care plan was not revised due to an uncontrolled nose bleed, not reflected on the comprehensive care plan. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans Standard of Practice, last revised November 2017, revealed it is the practice of the facility to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-15 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility 24 hour Report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents receive proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision and hearing abilities, the facility must, if necessary, assist the residents In making appointments, and by arranging for transportation to and from the office of a practitioner specializing in the treatment of vision or hearing impairment or the office of a professional specializing in the provision of vision or hearing assistive devices for one (1) of twenty-five sampled residents (Resident #20). Resident #20 was seen by an ophthalmologist on 01/22/18 and recommendations were made for the resident to be evaluated by a cataract surgeon. An appointment was scheduled for 02/19/18, however, the resident was a no show, as the resident refused to go to the appointment. He/she was again scheduled to see the ophthalmologist on 08/27/18, but he/she was out of the facility for another doctor's appointment and was not seen by the ophthalmologist. There was no documented evidence 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 · D2019-02-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident, with or without an indwelling catheter, receives the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for one (1) of twenty-five sampled residents (Resident #32). Three (3) observations revealed improper positioning of Resident #32's urinary catheter tubing and drainage bag placement. The findings include: A signed statement from the Administrator and the Director of Nursing, dated 02/14/19, revealed the facility does not have a policy for urinary catheter care. However, review of the facility policy titled, Catheter Care, not dated, revealed to secure catheter properly. Coil and secure tubing to the bed. Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control Tracking and Trending, last revised September, 2013, revealed the purpose of the policy was to prevent the spread of infection and provide appropriate education for staff and residents concerning infection control. Record review 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 · D2019-02-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to apply oxygen (O2) therapy according to the Physician's Order for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents (Resident #7). Observation on 02/12/19 revealed staff failed to ensure Resident #7 received O2 at three (3) liters per minute (LPM) per the Physician's Order. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration and Maintenance, not dated, revealed Oxygen will be administered in accordance with physician's orders. The nurse will be responsible for ensuring oxygen is applied per physician's orders. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 03/03/18 with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Bronchitis, and Dyspnea. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/16/18 , revealed the facility assessed Resident #7's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3), which indicated the resident was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 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 |
| MEDCO FRANKLIN RE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| MUSE, GREGORY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/14/2022 |
| 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 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 88% 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 $982K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185331. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-03, 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.