Western State Nursing Facility
2400 Russellville Road, Hopkinsville, KY 42240 · Government - State · 144 certified beds · (270) 889-6025 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 10.2% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 15.0% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 1.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 68.4% | 29.8% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.9% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.7% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 42.5% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.28 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.93 | 2.14 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-10 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: 20Number of residents cited: 2The facility failed to provide a dignified existence for two residents by not ensuring lap covering for two residents, R35 and R18. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect, dignity, and care for each resident in a manner and an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for two (2) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident 18 and 35). The findings include: Review of facility policy dated October 2000, item 21 titled Dignity revealed, the facility must promote care for residents in a manner that maintains or enhances each individual's dignity and respects his or her dignity.A review of MDS information revealed R35 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of unspecified symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness and does not have a BIMS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow standard precautions to be followed to prevent the spread of infection. Appropriate infection prevention and control practices were not implemented during medication administration. Hand hygiene was not performed while administering medications to one of two residents, Resident (R) 28. The findings include:Review of facility policy, titled Psychobiological/Pharmacological Interventions Medication Administration and Documentation, revised January 2023, revealed all medication will be prepared and administered as per manufacturer's specifications and accepted professional standards.Review of facility policy, titled Infection Prevention and Control, revised October 2022, revealed Western State Nursing Facility will maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections.Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference…
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 · D2025-12-10 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: 20Number of residents cited: 1The facility failed to ensure that one resident could access the call light R46. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the call system was accessible to residents while in their bed, chair, or other sleeping accommodations for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents (R46). The findings include: Review of MDS information on 12/08/2025 revealed that R46 was admitted on [DATE] and had a BIMS of 99 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and is not interviewable. Review of functional abilities (GG0130A1) shows partial to moderate help needed for using eating utensils. Review of care plan dated 10/20/2025, an intervention for high risk of fall was to ensure the call light is within reach. An observation made on 12/08/2025 at 2:00 PM revealed that Resident 46 was sitting in a Broda chair 2 feet from her bed with a call light wedged behind the recliner at the foot of her bed. An observation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance (QAA) committee consisting of the Medical Director or his/her representative. The facility failed to ensure or encourage real-time alternative methods of participation, such as videoconferencing and teleconference calls to include the Medical Director or his/her representative. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee, dated 10/2022, revealed the facility would maintain a QAA committee consisting of a minimum of the Administrator or representative, Director of Nursing (DON) or representative, Physician, Infection Preventionist or representative, and three facility staff. Further review revealed the QAA committee must meet at least quarterly and as needed to coordinate and evaluate activities under the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. During an interview with the Administrator, on 08/08/2024 at 4:30 PM, she stated the Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director…
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 before2024-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's policy and resident's medical record, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for one of two sampled residents (Resident #22 (R22)). Staff failed to perform hand hygiene when indicated; contaminated residents' clothing and bed linens; and, failed to prevent the contamination of clean dressings. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Practices in Maintaining Sanitary Environment in the Prevention of Development and Spread of Contagious Viruses and Pathogens, dated 12/2006 and revised 03/2019 revealed the facility will maintain infection control practices that promote a sanitary environment to prevent the development and spread of contagious viruses and pathogens. Review of the facility's policy, Nursing Interventions: Skin/Wound Care Protocol dated 12/1998 revised 08/2022…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to staff not washing hands or changing gloves after leaving the meal tray prep area and prior to returning to area. Review of the Census and Condition, dated 11/19/19, revealed eighty-three (83) of ninety-three (93) residents received their meals from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Handwashing, last reviewed 10/2018, revealed routine hand washing should be completed after situations during which microbial contamination of hands is likely to occur and after touching inanimate sources that are likely to be contaminated with virulent or epidemiological important microorganisms of special clinical or epidemiological significance; for example: multiple drug resistant bacteria. Observation on 11/19/19 at 11:30 AM, revealed the dietary cook left the tray line three (3) times, once she touched a tray cart, the second time she touched 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 · D2019-11-21 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents' right to privacy was honored (Resident #93). Staff were observed to walk by Resident #93's room while he/she was up in his/her wheelchair, in his/her doorway, with his/her gown pulled up exposing his/her incontinent brief; however, the staff failed to assist Resident #93 in covering him/herself up to ensure the resident's privacy per facility policy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Rights, last revised March 2017, revealed the facility will protect and promote the rights of each resident. Resident rights will be recognized and honored to insure a dignified existence and self-determination. The policy further revealed the facility must promote care for residents in a manner that maintains and enhances each individuals dignity and respects his/her individuality. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #93 on 10/15/08, with diagnoses which included Schizophrenia and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-21 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a written notice of transfer/discharge, which included the reason for the resident's transfer, was sent to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Residents #80 and #88 ) Record review for Residents #80 and #88, revealed no documented evidence a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of the resident transfers. The finding include: Review of the facility policy titled, Placement, Discharge, Planning, and Transfers, last reviewed July 2016, revealed while on leave/bed hold, the facility will notify the resident and/or representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #80 on 08/15/13, with diagnoses which included Seizure Disorder and Psychotic Disorder. Review of a Nurses Note dated 09/10/19, revealed Resident #80 was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of four (4) sampled residents with wounds in the selected sample of twenty-two (22) residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan (Resident #41). Licensed staff failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of practice for Resident #41. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Nursing Interventions: Skin/Wound Care Protocol dated 12/1998 and reviewed June 2017 revealed, The facility will ensure that optimal skin care is provided to all residents according to Clinical Practice guidelines as per the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Any resident identified with an actual skin care problem or identified as a high risk for pressure injury or skin injury with have an individualized plan of care developed and initiated per the licensed nurse to address specific goals and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-21 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of four (4) sampled residents with pressure ulcers in the selected sample of twenty-two (22) residents received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection. Licensed staff failed to provide pressure ulcer care for Resident #30 according to professional standards of practice which resulted in the Nurse contaminating the wound with feces. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Nursing Interventions: Skin/Wound Care Protocol dated 12/1998 and reviewed June 2017 revealed, The facility will ensure that optimal skin care is provided to all residents according to Clinical Practice guidelines as per the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Any resident identified with an actual skin care problem or identified as a high risk for pressure injury or skin injury with have an individualized plan of care developed…
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 · D2019-11-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible (Resident #30) related to poor hand hygiene during indwelling catheter care. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Care of the Indwelling Catheter to Prevent Infections dated March 2001 and revised April 2017 revealed the facility will closely monitor all residents with long term indwelling catheter placement for signs and symptoms of infection and urosepsis. A resident will not be catheterized unless their clinical coneition demonstrates that the catheterization is necessary. Residents with an indwelling catheter will receive perineal and catheter care every shift and following every bowel movement. Catheter care includes cleaning at least the first four inches of the catheter closest to the insertion site plus the perineal area with soap and water. The tubing will be assessed after care to ensure it…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Residents #30, and #89). In addition, the facility failed to ensure linens were transported so as to prevent the spread of infection. Observation revealed staff failed to perform handwashing to prevent infections during pressure ulcer care and catheter care for Resident #30 and catheter care and gastrostomy care for Resident #89. In addition, observation revealed staff carried a resident's clothing protector under his arm prior to placing it around a residents neck during meal service. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing, last revised October 2018 revealed, handwashing is considered the single most important procedure for preventing infection or the spread of infection. Indications: when you arrive at work, before and after touching wounds, after situations during which microbial contamination of hands…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON, BARBIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/06/2023 |
| COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/03/1991 |
| BARBEE, TERRI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/16/2024 |
| GRAY, KATHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2023 |
| MADDOX, KATRICE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2015 |
| MOORE, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2015 |
| SHAH, PRAKASH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in KY
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 185228. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-10, 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.