Harlan Health and Rehabilitation Center
200 Medical Center Drive, Harlan, KY 40831 · For profit - Corporation · 143 certified beds · (606) 573-7250 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $10,868 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-21)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.9% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.2% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 5.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.7% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 41.9% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.0% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.6% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 37.1% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.83 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.27 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
§ 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.
40.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 55 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 30.4% 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 23 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 46% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 40.1%CMS range 30.0–52.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.7%CMS range 11.2–18.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 30.4% | 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 | 13.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 30.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 15.6% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 4.4–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.12 | 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 143 beds and averages 118.6 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 24 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 4.19 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.90 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.32 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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 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.
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 · Gcited before2025-03-21 · 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, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan related to dental needs to ensure that medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs related to weight loss were met for one (Resident (R) 99) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition out of a sample of 49 residents. R99 sustained pain and a severe weight loss of 20% in the six months between 09/17/2024 and 03/10/2025. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy Care Plan Policy and Protocol, revision 09/2024, revealed the care plan would be updated as indicated with changes in condition, physician orders, fall interventions, etc. Review of R99's clinical record revealed the facility admitted R99 on 07/05/2023, with diagnoses which included Huntington's disease and cognitive communication deficit. Review of R99's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/14/2023, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-21 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status such as body weight for one (Resident (R) 99) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition, out of a total sample of 49 residents. R99, who had significant dental breakdown, experienced pain and sustained a severe/significant unplanned weight loss that continued for at least six months after the facility was notified that the resident needed dental care. In addition, the facility failed to timely address the consistency of the resident's food and the need for dental care. The findings include: Review of the facility's Nutrition Policy, dated 08/2024, revealed the facility was to implement interventions to prevent unintentional weight loss. Per the policy, the facility will include the IDT [interdisciplinary team], provider, resident and/or representative, as well as the registered dietician in determining appropriate interventions/strategies to maximize…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-21 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide/obtain needed dental care for one of 49 sampled residents (Resident (R) 99) who was reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to obtain needed dental services over a nine-month period for the resident who had multiple broken teeth which needed extraction. During this time, the resident sustained pain, as well as, a severe weight loss over a six and nine-month period. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Protocol for Oral Status Assessment, revision date 08/2017, revealed An assessment of the oral cavity of each resident will be completed annually by a nurse. This assessment will be documented on the Comprehensive MDS [Minimum Data Set] in Section L, as well as in the CAAs [Care Area Assessments]. Each resident will have an Oral Status Care Plan which will be reviewed and updated quarterly with each MDS and prn [as needed]. The documentation of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-21 · tag F0922 — failed to maintain the building's systems — widespreadHave enough backup water supply for essential areas of the nursing home.
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 ensure it had safe drinking water available when there was a loss of normal water supply for all residents. This had the ability to affect all 132 residents. The findings include: In an interview with the Administrator, on 03/20/2025 at 11:10 AM, she stated the facility did not have a policy to address the availability of water when there was a loss of normal water supply. Further, she stated it was her expectation that the facility would have drinkable water available each day for a period of three days, for the residents consumption. Review of the facility's Water Utility Agreement, dated 12/21/2017, revealed the city's Municipal Water Works assisted the facility with emergency water access. Review of the facility's Emergency Preparedness Plan document, dated 03/17/2025, from the Food Service Vendor, revealed the industry standard was to have 1.5 gallons of water per person, per day, available in the event of an emergency. Observation on 03/19/2025 at 2:15 PM revealed the facility had a total of 1,368…
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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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, the facility failed to provide Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to residents before their coverage ended. Two of 10 residents reviewed (Residents (R) 282 and 279) revealed the NOMNC's were issued after the residents' benefits ended. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Notice Instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services]-10123, undated, revealed The NOMNC must be delivered to all Medicare beneficiaries at least two calendar days before Medicare covered services ended or the second to last day of service if care was not being provided daily. 1. Review of R282's NOMNC revealed the resident's Medicare coverage ended on 12/07/2024. Further review revealed Family Member (FM) 10 signed the NOMNC on 12/09/2024 which was two days after the resident's coverage ended. During an interview with the Business Office Manager 1 (BOM1) on 03/21/2025 at 9:19 AM, she stated she called FM10 and informed her of R282'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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food and drinks which were palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for five of 35 sampled residents reviewed for food temperatures (Residents (R)19, R67, R86, R98, and R111). During resident council, residents expressed concerns of their food being served cold when the aides passed their trays. Observation of the breakfast meal, on 03/19/2025, revealed the sausage, eggs, biscuits, oatmeal, milk, and cranberry juice were not at an appetizing and acceptable temperature. Observation of the breakfast meal, on 03/20/2025, revealed the sausage, eggs, oatmeal, and grape juice were not at an appetizing and acceptable temperature. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dietary Infection Control, undated, revealed temperatures must be maintained at 41 degrees (41°) Fahrenheit (F) or below for cold or refrigerated food. Further review revealed temperatures must be maintained at the following Fahrenheit settings:…
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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The census was 132. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Tray Line and Meal Delivery Service, undated, revealed staff were to not touch the food surface areas of plates, bowls, cups, or saucers. Staff were to pick the items up by the outer rim only. Continued review revealed staff were to use tongs, spoons, scoops, etc. to serve all food including bread. Additionally, staff should wash their hands and change gloves between each task. Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Washing, undated, revealed staff were to wash their hands after handling soiled equipment or utensils and during food preparation, as often as necessary to remove soil or contamination and to prevent cross contamination when changing tasks. Observation on 03/17/2025 at 4:15 PM revealed Cook1 touched the surface area of plates as she removed them from the plate warmer. Further observation revealed she rested her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan (CCP) for one (1) of eleven (11) sampled residents (Resident #8). On [DATE] Resident #8 was rolled out of the bed, onto the floor, by State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, while providing care unassisted by another staff member. Resident #8 was care planned to be a two person staff assist for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Care Plan Policy and Protocol, revised 09/2017, revealed the facility would develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental/psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Further review of the policy revealed the [NAME] would be utilized as a guide for nurse aides in providing care on a daily basis. Continued review of the policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate supervision for one (1) of eleven (11) sampled residents (Resident #8). On [DATE] Resident #8 was rolled out of the bed, onto the floor, by State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, while providing care unassisted by another staff member. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Falls Management/Prevention, revised 06/2021, revealed it was the policy of the facility to screen all residents to identify possible risk factors that may place a resident at risk for falls, to evaluate those risks, implement interventions to reduce those risks and observe those interventions and modify when necessary. Further review of the policy revealed it was the policy of the facility to investigate any resident fall to determine root cause and appropriate interventions to put in place to minimize the risk of recurrence and the risk of injury related to a fall. Review 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 · E2021-04-15 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to label and store biologicals with currently accepted professional principles for one (1) of five (5) medication carts observed. Four (4) multi-dose vials of Insulin which were not dated when opened were observed on one (1) medication cart on the west wing. In addition, one of the vials of insulin did not have a pharmacy label which included the resident's name, medication name, dose, route, etc. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Protocol for Multi-Dose Vials, undated, revealed multi dose vials should be initialed and dated when opened and stored per manufacturers recommendations. Further review of the policy and review of the manufacturers recommendations revealed multi-dose vials of insulin will be discarded after twenty eight (28) days. Observation on 04/15/2021 at 3:59 PM of the west wing medication cart (for the 900 hallway) revealed two (2) ten (10) milliliter (ml) multi dose bottles of Novolog 70/30 Insulin, one (1) ten (10) ml multi dose bottle 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 · Ecited before2019-03-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 person-centered comprehensive care plans for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #41) related to hospice care and one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #43) related to oxygen therapy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy and Protocol, revised September 2017, revealed the facility would develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident which would include measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. 1. Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/14/16 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction, Fatigue, Depression, Dysphagia, Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Hemiplegia. Review of Resident #41's Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-03-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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, medical record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure two (2) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #43 and Resident #123) who had physician orders to receive oxygen therapy were provided services as ordered by the physician. Review of physician orders for Resident #43 revealed an order for oxygen at two (2) liters per minute (LPM); however, observations of Resident #43 on 03/12/19 and 03/13/19 revealed the resident was not wearing the oxygen. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #123 revealed an order for the resident to receive oxygen at three (3) liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously. However, observations of Resident #123 on 03/12/19 revealed the resident's nasal cannula was observed to be on the floor. 1. Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/18/14 with diagnoses of Black Lung Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, Emphysema,…
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
$10,868 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $5,434 — penalty dated 2025-03-21
- $5,434 — penalty dated 2025-03-21
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-04-19 for 11 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SEKY HOLDING CO. — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEKY HOLDING CO | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/18/2003 |
| FCLTC HOLDINGS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/28/2016 |
| FORCHT, TERRY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/18/2003 |
| DAHHAN, ABDULKADER | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/01/1991 |
| HENSLEY, SHARON | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/08/2005 |
| ALSIP, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| ARNOLD, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| TIPTON, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/16/2018 |
| WITT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| WILLIS, JACKIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| DAILEY, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/16/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 91% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185166. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-21, 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.