Hardinsburg Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
101 Fairgrounds Road, Hardinsburg, KY 40143 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 63 certified beds · (270) 756-2159 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- about 23% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 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.
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 | 11.7% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 1.4% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.4% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.4% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.1% | 24.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.03 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.92 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.9% 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 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 23.8% 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 21 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 39.9%CMS range 28.8–50.2 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.3–15.4 | 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 | 23.8% | 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 | 38.1% | 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 | 19.1% | 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 | 94.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.6%CMS range 3.8–13.4 | 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 63 beds and averages 59.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.67 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2019-03-29 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician and the resident's responsible party when there was a change in condition for one (1) of sixteen (16) sampled residents, Resident #47. Resident #47 developed a fever, had complaints of pain, fell, and was transferred to the Emergency Room; however, the facility did not notify the physician or responsible party of the incidents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Acute Condition Changes (ACC)-Clinical Protocol, revised October 2010, revealed staff was to call the attending physician or on call physician with an identified ACC, and were to include current symptoms and status of the resident. The staff was to report to the physician possible causes related to the current symptoms or known test results. If lab results were not available, the facility and physician were to determine if an order for diagnostic tests were indicated. Further review revealed an ACC could be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2019-03-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, it was determined the facility failed to develop a care plan for two (2) of sixteen (16) sampled residents, Residents #5 and #47. Resident #47 was diagnosed and treated for a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) on 11/23/18. The resident was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis of a UTI; however, the facility did not develop a care plan for the UTI when it was first diagnosed at the facility, nor when the resident was re-admitted on [DATE]. In addition, the facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #5's restraint. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans-Comprehensive, revised October 2010, revealed areas of concern were to be added to the resident's care plan. Based on thorough assessment, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) team was to ensure 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.
- Actual harm · G2019-03-29 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure timely care and services were provided to a resident to treat a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) for one (1) of sixteen (16) sampled residents, Resident #47. Record review and interviews revealed on 11/17/18, Resident #47 complained of bladder pain, presented with a fever on multiple days, was noted to have increased confusion, and experienced falls. The resident was not evaluated for a UTI until 11/22/18, which resulted in the UTI to worsen and the resident experienced a fall and required hospitalization due to fractures from the fall. Resident #47 returned to the facility and was totally dependent on staff for care, when prior to the fall, the resident was independent. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Urinary Tract Infections/Bacteriuria/Clinical Protocol, revised October 2006, revealed signs and symptoms of a UTI were to be identified as soon as possible to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of accident hazards for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for accidents, Resident (R)39. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of accident hazards for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for accidents, Resident (R)39.FindingsCollapse[NAME]'s FindingsWriting Complete | Last Updated by [NAME] 07/25/2025 12:01 PM | The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed, Medications will be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Review of R39's admission Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted the resident on 11/26/2024. According to the admission Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of low back pain. Review of R39's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with…
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 · D2025-07-10 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for the administration of supplemental oxygen for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care, Resident (R)9. The findings include: Review of R9's admission Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/02/2025. According to the admission Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Review of R9's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/07/2025, revealed the facility assessed R9 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of R9's Care Plan indicated a problem area initiated 05/26/2025, revealing the resident had a self-care deficit as evidenced by the need for moderate assistance with activities of daily living due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and generalized weakness. Interventions directed staff to give supplemental oxygen as ordered (initiated 05/26/2025).…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-10 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility document and policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within 2 hours for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for abuse, Resident(R)36. The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice, revised 07/2022, indicated Alleged violations shall be reported to the state survey agency, adult protective services, and all other required agencies within specified time frames.Review of R36's admission Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/05/2024. According to the admission Face Sheet, R36 had a medical history that included a diagnosis of severe vascular dementia with anxiety and mood disturbance.Review of R36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/11/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment.Review of the facility Initial Report, indicated 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-06-14 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The sanitation handwashing area, sanitation prep sink area, and flooring were dirty/soiled and in need of cleaning. Dry spices, as well as food stored in the refrigerator and freezer were open and unsealed, unlabeled, undated, and/or past their expiration date. Scoops used for serving food were dirty with old food particles dried to them. Staff were not trained and/or were unaware of food storage requirements. This failure had the potential to affect all residents of the facility who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's Casper Report, last updated 06/09/2024, revealed 59 of 59 residents received their food from the kitchen. 1. Review of the facility's Environment policy, dated 05/2014, revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure that all food service areas would be maintained in a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, and review of manufacturer's information, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with professional standards, including open/use by/expiration dates and/or resident name for at least seven (Resident (R) 39, R26, R43, R5, R34, R25, and R48) of 43 residents whose medications were observed during an audit of three of the facility's four medication carts. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Medication Administration Standard of Practice, with a review date of 10/2020, revealed, When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened shall be recorded on the container. Expired/beyond use date medication should not be administered. Review of the facility policy, Label / Store Drugs & Biologicals Standard of Practice, last reviewed 10/2020, revealed, Drugs and Biologicals must be labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and include the expiration…
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 before2019-03-29 · 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, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a safe and sanitary manner. Observation of the kitchen revealed surfaces and small appliances appeared dirty, and there were unlabeled and outdated foods in the refrigerator. In addition, staff failed to utilize proper hand hygiene during meal plating and staff failed to calibrate the food thermometer prior to testing the temperature of the food. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Food Storage and Retention, FDA Food Code 2017, undated, revealed ready to eat cereal could be stored for two (2) to three (3) months (opened), and ready to eat/prepared foods (leftovers, deli salads) up to seven (7) days. Review of the facility's policy, Handwashing, revised September 2017, revealed handwashing was to be completed with employees associated with handling food. Hands were to be washed at the kitchen hand sink station and use a seperate dry paper towel to turn off the faucet to avoid contact with the faucet germs. Review of the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-03-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store controlled medication in a permanently affixed, locked compartment in one (1) of two (2) medication rooms, on the [NAME] Wing. Observation revealed controlled medication stored in the refrigerator; however, it was not in a permanently affixed compartment. In addition, observations revealed two (2) of two (2) unlocked medication carts not under supervision of staff. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy, Storage of Medications, revised April 2007, revealed medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station, or other secured location. Medications must be stored separately from food and must be labeled accordingly. The policy did not address controlled medications stored within a locked, permanently affixed box within the refrigerator. Observation of the [NAME] Wing Medication Room, on 03/28/19 at 10:24 AM, revealed the refrigerator contained a small white plastic basket with bags of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-29 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 ensure residents were free from unnecessary restraints for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents, Residents #5. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Restraints, dated 07/01/12, revealed it was the facility's belief residents had the right to be free from physical restraints. However if a resident developed medical symptoms which placed the resident at risk of harm to self or others and restraint alternatives had been unsuccessful, the resident's physician and staff would assess whether a restraint would be helpful and the physician would order the least restrictive restraint. The policy further stated the restraint would be discontinued as soon as the resident's condition no longer required the intervention. Review of Resident #5's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/16/18, with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Ataxia, and Muscle Weakness. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-29 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — isolatedHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and review of the Plan of Correction (POC) for the 03/29/19 Recertification Survey, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to ensure compliance was maintained regarding medication cart security. Observations revealed two (2) of four (4) medication carts were unlocked and unattended by staff. (Refer to F761) The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Quality Review and QAPI Plan Standard Practice, revised November 17, revealed the goal of the facility was not to have repeated citations of a D level or higher in a fifteen (15) month time period. The committee was to monitor the compliance with the POC. Under the direction of the Administrator, the facility was to verify the action plan and Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) were in place. The QA committee was to monitor the facility's compliance with the POC. Review of the POC for the survey conducted 03/29/19, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) completed a facility audit for unlocked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BENJAMIN LANDA — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLATSCHEK, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 09/01/2018 |
| PLATSCHEK, GOLDIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 09/01/2018 |
| RUBENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 09/01/2018 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2018 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| BAXLEY, JEFFREY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/08/2024 |
| TACKETT, THOMAS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/12/2023 |
| VANCE, JOSEPH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| DICKENSON, BENITA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/10/2018 |
| KELMAN, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 85% 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 23% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185302. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-10, 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.