No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Owensboro Health Muhlenberg Community Hospital Lon

440 Hopkinsville Street, Greenville, KY 42345 · Non profit - Other · 45 certified beds · (270) 338-8433 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (270) 338-8433 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Nov 2023
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
440 Hopkinsville St · (270) 377-0111 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.6 mi
201 S Main St · (270) 338-4241 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
306 S Main St · (270) 338-1512 · Call to confirm hours
Park
131 E Main Cross St · (270) 377-1900 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 3 to 4 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased20.0%13.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight11.2%6.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder6.9%0.5%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection8.2%1.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.7%17.7%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.1%3.9%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened17.3%14.0%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication30.1%29.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.3%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.4%4.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.1%19.0%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table29.5%16.1%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine62.7%83.5%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.7%24.2%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit0.0%13.7%12.0%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.221.941.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.002.141.80better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

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.

54.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 85 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

54.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
40.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.04U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.04hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Met the expected recovery: 40.0% 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 40 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 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 80% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF54.9%CMS range 47.3–63.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 7.5–15.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge40.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge40.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge22.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified89.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.2%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.0%CMS range 2.9–11.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.541.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.16
RN hours/ resident / day
1.45
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.16
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.77
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.65
RN hoursweekends
38.9%
Total nursing turnover
45.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 45 beds and averages 36.7 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 5.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.16 is at or above 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 4.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.13 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.37 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-19)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-09)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 the facility's policy, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, which had the potential to affect 37 of the facility's 37 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. Observation of the kitchen revealed food items were not sealed and/or covered to prevent contamination. Food items were labeled with a use-by date but had not been discarded after expiration. Review of the facility policy titled, Food and Supply Storage, revised 04/2025, revealed all food supplies used in food preparation should be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination to maintain the safety and wholesomeness of the food for human consumption. All foods past the use by date should be discarded. Additionally, all unused portions and opened packages were to be covered, labeled and dated, and freezer food items were to be wrapped tightly to prevent cross-contamination. Observation during initial tour of the kitchen on 03/17/2026, revealed the following:a. Observation of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comprehensive care plan that is reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 4 out of 4 sampled residents.The findings include: Record review revealed Resident (R)8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Additional diagnoses include class 3 severe obesity, sleep apnea, ischemic congestive cardiomyopathy, and atrial flutter. Further review revealed an order for Eliquis 5 mg, oral, 2 times daily, started on 10/17/2025. Review of the most recent MDS for R8, accepted on 03/14/2025, revealed that the resident was reported as being on an anticoagulant. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan for R8 revealed no care planning regarding the for risk of bleeding related to taking an anticoagulant. 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-19 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to have follow-up procedures that must be in place to provide the information to the individual directly at the appropriate time for advance directives for one of the three residents sampled. A record review of Resident (R) 28's electronic chart on 03/18/2026 at 9:00 AM revealed the resident had an order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) as of 02/26/2026 and had advanced directive in parentheses behind the DNR located just beneath the resident's picture. A policy review of the documents titled Advance Directives & Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST), 600-024, revised date of 12/2025, on 03/18/2026 at 10:00 AM, revealed that the policy did not have direction on follow-up assessments for an advance directive. An interview with Resident #28's Daughter, Family #2 and power of attorney (POA) on 03/18/2026 at 9:37 AM, she revealed that she is her mother's POA but had not brought a copy to the facility. She denied that the facility had asked for the advance directive. During a review of Resident #28's durable…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-01-09 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and review of the Facility Assessment, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) were utilized for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. The facility failed to provide eight consecutive hours of RN coverage for 13 days between 07/01/2024 and 09/30/2024. This failure affected all persons residing in the facility on those 13 days, as the residents did not receive the required minimum nursing services. The findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment Staffing Plan, dated 07/2024 and revised 11/2024, revealed the facility received a one-star rating on staffing due to a high number of days without an RN on site daily. The facility had an RN house supervisor available 24 hours a day in the attached acute hospital. Due to her supervising in the attached acute hospital and not being assigned eight consecutive hours to the long-term care facility, the RN house supervisor's hours were not reflected on the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report. Review of the facility's PBJ Staffing 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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-01-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Refrigerated foods were not dated, labeled, and/or discarded in a timely manner. These failures had the potential to affect 34 of 34 residents in the facility who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety Management System, revised 12/06/2024, revealed leftover foods must be properly labeled and date marked. The policy also stated that leftover foods must be discarded if required by local, state, or provincial health department regulation, but failed to identify specific discard dates. Observation during the initial kitchen tour on 01/07/2025 at 12:03 PM, with the Dietary Supervisor, revealed the cold prep cooler contained a small container of a red jelly-like substance that was not labeled or dated which the Dietary Supervisor identified as cranberry sauce, and a large container of pineapple chunks that was not labeled or dated. Additional observation…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility census was forty (40) and thirty-nine (39) residents received meals from the kitchen and had the potential to be affected. Observation, during initial tour of the kitchen, revealed opened food items that were not labeled or dated. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Food Receiving and Storage, dated 02/2022, revealed, foods would be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. All food stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered labeled and dated with a use by date. Observation of the facility's kitchen on 11/14/2023 at 6:40 PM, revealed there was a container of four (4) biscuits and a container of bacon not dated or labeled in the walk-in cooler. During an interview with the Certified Dietary Supervisor on 11/14/2023 at 6:45 PM, she stated she expected all opened food items located in the refrigerator or freezer to be labeled…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that an alleged allegations of physical abuse was reported to the State Agency and local law authorities immediately, but no later than two (2) hours after the allegations were made for one (1) of twelve (12) sampled residents ( Resident #15). During a Resident Council Meeting on 11/15/2023 at 2:06 PM, Resident #15 stated he/she reported an allegation of abuse last week to the Nursing Supervisor/ However, the allegation was not reported to the Abuse Coordinator until 11/15/2023. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the State Survey Agency (SSA) of the allegation. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Abuse and Abuse Prevention, revised 05/2023, revealed all residents would be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion, including freedom from physical or chemical restraints not required to treat a resident's medical symptoms. All alleged violations involving…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for one (1) of twelve (12) sampled residents (Resident #24). Observations and record review revealed Resident #24 was being treated for a wound however, there was no documented evidence a care plan had been implemented to include wound care. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy. Careplan's Comprehensive, revised 02/2023, revealed an individualized comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs would be developed for each resident. Review of Resident #24's Demographics revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/03/2022 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease with Behavioral Disturbances, Diabetes Mellitus Type II, and Thrombocytopenia. Review of Resident #24's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-17 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to review and revise each resident's Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plan for one (1) of twelve (12) sampled residents (Resident #33). Resident #33 had a significant weight loss of nineteen percent (19%) from 07/02/2023 to 11/10/2023, with no revisions made to his/her plan of care. The findings include: Review of facility the policy's policy, Care Plans - Comprehensive, dated 02/2022, revealed, an individualized comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents medical nursing mental and psychological needs would be developed for each resident. Assessments of residents were ongoing and care plans were revised as information about the resident and the residents condition change. The care plan Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and or clinical staff were responsible for the review and updating of care plans when there had been a significant change in 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including usual body weight for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents for weight loss of a total sample size of twelve (12) (Resident 33). Resident #33 had a significant weight loss of nineteen percent (19%) from 07/02/2023 to 11/10/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Weight Protocol, Nutritional Risk, dated 02/2022, revealed the long-term care unit strived to maintain each resident at the appropriate weight for that resident and that all residents were screened for nutritional risk. An accurate weight of all residents should be obtained on admission and be weighed according to the physicians' orders but at a minimum monthly. The physician and the multidisciplinary care team would address unintended weight loss or gain in order that all residents were assessed for nutritional risk. Further review revealed the residents current weight would be compared to the previous weight…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
HEATH, EDWARDIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2015
MITCHELL, KATHLEENIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2017
BRAKE, CANDACEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2022
DUFRAYNE, FRANCISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2021
GARDNER, TERESAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2021
MCBRIDE, ANTHONYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2022
POLLOCK, ARCHIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2021
PRUNTY, MARSHALLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2021
ROBERTS, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2022
MARSH, MARKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/07/2021
RANALLO, RUSSELLIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/20/2022
OWENSBORO HEALTH, INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/01/2014

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner 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.

What families pay in KY

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Kentucky
$9,718/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,254/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,528/mo
Assisted living

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 185008. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-19, 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.

What to do next