Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation
250 McDavid Boulevard, Grayson, KY 41143 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (606) 474-7835 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0606, F0609) — most recent Aug 2025
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $18,000 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-29)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (68%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 held steady at 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.6% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.3% | 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 | 2.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 38.3% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.6% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.9% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 80.4% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.8% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.17 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.98 | 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.
39.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 69 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 33.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 33 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% 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 | 39.6%CMS range 28.0–48.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–14.5 | 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 | 33.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 24.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 30.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 78.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 4.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.6–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.27 | 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 120 beds and averages 110.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 2.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-07-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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, record review, review of the facility's documents, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards related to water temperatures outside the acceptable range for thirty-two (32) of one hundred ten (110) residents (Resident #94, #64, #98, #25, #16, #46, #90, #69, #108, #77, #60, #107, #95, #85, #414, #53, #99, #68, #34, #36, #54, #15, #73, #71, #100, #26, #21, #70, #31, #91, #9, and #164). Observation of water temperature checks on 07/10/2023 beginning at 4:43 PM, revealed water temperatures in Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 48, 49, and 50 were not within the acceptable parameters for ensuring resident safety. The water temperatures ranged between one hundred twelve (112) degrees Fahrenheit (F) and one hundred twenty (120) degrees F. The water temperatures were taken utilizing a metal Bi-Therm hand held thermometer with a dial gauge. In an interview with the Maintenance Director (MD) on…
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 · G2025-08-29 · 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, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse and neglect which resulted in actual harm for 1 out of 10 sampled residents, Resident (R) 29. On 08/24/2025, Resident 29 had an incontinent episode and required the assistance of staff to help change her. However, instead of changing the resident, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 1 became verbally abusive to the resident and both, SRNA1 and SRNA11, neglected to provide the resident hygiene care to remove the feces from the resident. Instead, SRNA 1 and SRNA 11 covered the resident with a feces-covered blanket for a period of over three hours. The resident reported she was scared of SRNA1, and SRNA10 stated this upset the resident, which caused the resident psychosocial harm. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation and Exploitation Policy, dated 07/01/2025, revealed abuse was the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-08-29 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 10 failed to immediately report an allegation of staff abuse/neglect for 1 of 10 sampled residents, Resident (R) 29.SRNA10 did not notify the Administrator when R29 reported to her that SRNA1 and SRNA11 failed to provide timely hygiene care and left R29 soiled for hours after an episode of fecal incontinence on 08/24/2025. Resident 29 stated the SRNAs actions were neglectful of her care which made her scared of SRNA1, and SRNA10 reported the resident was visibly upset, causing the resident psychosocial harm.Refer to F600The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation and Exploitation Policy, dated 07/01/2025, revealed abuse was the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. The policy also stated abuse included the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-29 · 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, review of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2022 Food Code, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow safe food handling practices, ensure food items located in dry storage were properly labeled and dated, and ensure expired food items were discarded. This had the potential to affect all 112 current residents that received food from the kitchen.The findings include:Review of the document, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2022 Food Code, 01/18/2023 Version, in Chapter 3 Food, revealed food employees would not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with bare hands and shall use single-use gloves. It also stated food employees shall minimize bare hand contact with exposed food not in a ready-to-eat form. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe Food Handling, revised 02/05/2025, revealed the facility would follow safe food handling to significantly reduce the risk of foodborne illness thus strengthening the safety of the food provided to the residents. Further review revealed Care Team Members in nutrition/culinary would effectively…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assure that all services, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan being provided, met professional standards of quality for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration, Resident (R) 42.Review of R42's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and interviews from staff revealed the resident was administered a Zofran tablet (used to treat nausea) on 08/29/2025 at 3:54 PM by Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 14 without a standing order or provider's order for Zofran. The findings include:Review of the facility policy's titled, Medication Administration, dated 12/12/2023, revealed medications were administered, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice.Review of R42's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/31/2018 with diagnoses of dementia, diabetes, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of R42's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/19/2025, revealed the facility assessed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who had an indwelling catheter received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 2 sampled residents, Resident (R) 12. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Indwelling Catheter, dated 12/12/2023, revealed the facility would provide appropriate care for the catheter in accordance with current professional standards of practice and resident care policies and procedures. Review of the CDC's document Summary of Recommendations from the Guideline for Prevention of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (2009), for Health Care Providers, dated 03/25/2024, revealed to keep the urine collection bag below the level of the bladder at all times. It also stated, Do not rest the bag on the floor. Review of R12's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/01/2012 with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, dementia, 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 · E2023-07-17 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' medications were administered at an error rate below five percent (5%). Observation of the medication administration revealed a medication error rate of eleven percent (11%). Medications were not available for four (4) of thirty-six (36) opportunities for two (2) of ten (10) residents sampled for medication administration (Residents #69 and #94). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 2023, revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in this state; as ordered by the Physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice; and in a manner to prevent infection from contamination. Further review revealed to keep the medication cart clean, organized, and stocked with adequate supplies. 1. Observation of the medication administration on 07/14/2023 at 8:11 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #12 revealed Resident #69…
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 before2023-07-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's refrigerator temperature logs, review of the manufacturer's instructions for [NAME] Ready Care Nutrition, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food safely for two (2) of two (2) nourishment refrigerators. Observations, on 07/11/2023, of the South Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed residents' food products with no name and no room number. The 06/2023 and 07/2023 temperature logs had elevated temperatures recorded. The temperature logs for 03/2023, 04/2023, and 05/2023 were incomplete. Observation of the North Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed the documentation of the 07/2023 temperature log had a range of recorded temperatures of forty-six (46) to fifty-three (53) degrees Fahrenheit (F). This was higher than the acceptable range of thirty-six (36) to forty-one (41) degrees Fahrenheit on the Refrigerator Temperature Log. Also, the facility's policy temperature range was for the residents' food to store…
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 · D2023-07-17 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation report, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to keep the resident free from misappropriation of resident property, for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #415). On 12/04/2020, Resident #415 reported to the Infection Preventionist/ Staff Development Coordinator (IPSD) that a female (later identified as State Registered Nurse Assistant (SRNA) #31) removed a diamond ring from his/her finger and replaced it with a cheap ring on 12/03/2020. Additionally, review of the facility's investigation report, dated 12/04/2020, revealed SRNA #31 later came to the facility and returned the ring to the Executive Director (ED). The facility terminated SRNA #31 immediately. Further review of the facility investigation revealed that Law Enforcement had been notified after Resident #415 reported his/her ring missing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, revised date December 2016, revealed the residents had a right to be free from…
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 · D2023-07-17 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolatedNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of 906 [NAME] (Kentucky Administrative Regulations) 1:190, Section 1(4), a disqualifying offense, and review of 21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1308.11, it was determined the facility failed to screen a new employee for disqualifying offenses in the background check for (1) of eleven (11) personnel files reviewed (the Maintenance Director). The findings include: Review of the Kentucky National Background Check Disqualifying Offenses List revealed, Pursuant to 906 [NAME] 1:190, Section 1(4), a disqualifying offense included, a conviction of, or plea of guilty to a misdemeanor offense of unlawfully possessing or trafficking in a legend drug or controlled substance occurring less than seven (7) years from the date of the criminal background check. Review of 21 CFR 1308.11 (d)(23) revealed it listed marihuana as a controlled substance with a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Controlled Substances Code Number of 7360. Review of the Maintenance Director's employee file…
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 · D2023-07-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigative reports, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement effective care plan interventions for four (4) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Residents #364, #264, #89, and #99). Residents #364, #264, #89, and #99 were involved in resident-to-resident altercations and did not have their care plans fully developed or implemented to prevent abuse. The findings include: In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/11/2023 at 9:32 AM, she stated the facility did not have a specific care plan policy; however, utilized the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual. Review of the RAI manual, section 4.7 titled, The RAI and Care Planning, dated 10/2019, revealed the care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. 1. Review of the facility's investigative reports revealed Resident #364 was involved in the following…
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 · D2023-07-17 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to update the care plan for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #5). The facility failed to update Resident #5's care plan following the resident's readmission, with an ostomy on 06/01/2022. The facility did not update the care plan to include interventions to care for the ostomy until 05/12/2023. The findings include: In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 07/11/2023 at 9:32 AM, she stated the facility did not have a specific care planning policy; they followed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual guidance. Review of the RAI Manual, Section 4.7 The RAI and Care Planning, dated 10/2019, revealed the care plan was revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care that the resident required. Review of Resident #5's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 05/17/2022, with diagnoses which included…
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 before2023-07-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure the proper temperature ranges for one (1) of two (2) medication refrigerators. The facility failed to store medications in the North Hall medication refrigerator at a proper temperature. Observation of the refrigerator thermometer on 07/14/2023, revealed a temperature of fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit (F). Also, review of the temperature logs revealed no temperatures were recorded for 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023, and 07/11/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medication Requiring Refrigeration, dated 2023, revealed it was the policy of the facility to assure proper and safe storage of medication requiring refrigeration and to prevent the potential alteration of medication by exposure to improper temperature control. Further review of the policy revealed the facility would ensure that all medications and biologicals would be stored at proper temperatures and other appropriate environment…
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 · D2023-07-17 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to accommodate a resident's food allergy for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #65). Resident #65, whose Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented the resident was allergic to chocolate, received a chocolate fudge cookie with crushed medications during medication administration on 05/12/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, copyright date 2023, revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in the state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice. There were no references to allergies in the policy. Review of Resident #65's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/06/2017, with diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy, Expressive Language Disorder, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #65's Quarterly Minimum Data…
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 before2023-07-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention program. Observation on 07/13/2023 and 07/15/2023 revealed State Registered Nurse Aides (SRNA) #11, #25, and #26 failed to wear all the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in a room with a posted Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) sign. The SRNAs were providing ostomy care and changing soiled linens for one (1) of nineteen (19) residents who was on EBP (Resident #5). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated January 2023, revealed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were used to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). Further review revealed the definition of EBP referred to the use of gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities for residents with known MDROs or at an increased risk of being infected with MDROs. Continued review of the policy revealed explanation and compliance guidelines which stated staff members were expected…
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 before2019-11-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for one (1) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents, Resident #70. Observation of Resident #70's room on 11/04/19, revealed a cup of medications prescribed for Resident #70, sitting on the bedside table. In addition, there was no documented evidence the resident was assessed as able to self-administer medications. The findings include: Review of the facility Policy titled Storage of Medications, undated, revealed medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Per Policy, the medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. Continued review of the Policy, revealed only licensed nurses, pharmacy personnel, and those lawfully authorized to administer…
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
$18,000 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $8,000 — penalty dated 2025-08-29
- $10,000 — penalty dated 2025-08-29
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to DAVID MARX — 10 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARTER NURSING AND REHABILITATION HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/25/2019 |
| PRUITT, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| 250 MCDAVID BLVD SNF REALTY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| BLUEGRASS CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2025 |
| ALEXANDER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| CHAMBERLAIN, MARGARET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/11/2023 |
| GIBBS, SARAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MARX, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| REWA, ANGELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/23/2023 |
| RUSSELL, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SHATROV, ANZHELIKA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SHIELDS, KARI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WOLFE, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/11/2023 |
| 250 MCDAVID BLVD SNF REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| KENTUCKY SNF REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| MDG REAL ESTATE GLOBAL LIMITED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 78% 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 $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 185253. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-29, 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.