Village of Lebanon
105 Village Way, Lebanon, KY 40033 · For profit - Partnership · 64 certified beds · (270) 692-9000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2022
- the CMS record shows $45,335 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-08)
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 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 2 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 | 20.0% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 16.4% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 20.2% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 8.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.7% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 40.9% | 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 | 3.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.2% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.6% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.1% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.74 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.04 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.7% 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 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.9% 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 38 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 57.7%CMS range 49.3–66.2 | 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 | 8.5%CMS range 6.1–11.8 | 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 | 28.9% | 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 | 21.1% | 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 | 23.7% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.6% | 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 | 7.3% | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.1–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.41 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.24 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%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-15 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff transported 1 (Resident #31) of 4 residents in their geriatric chair in a forward-facing position to promote dignity. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, revised 10/01/2024, indicated, It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life by recognizing each resident's individuality. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #31 on 03/14/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had medical history that included diagnoses of dementia, anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive, need for assistance with personal care, and major depressive disorder. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/20/2025, revealed Resident #31 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-15 · 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, review of facility records, and policy review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care in such a manner as to reduce the risk of a urinary tract infection for 1 (Resident #47) of 2 residents whose incontinence care was observed.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Perineal Care, revised 10/01/2024, indicated, If perineum is grossly soiled, turn resident on side, remove any fecal material with toilet paper, then remove and discard. A. Cleanse buttocks and anus, front to back; vagina to anus in females, scrotum to anus in males, using a separate washcloth or wipes. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #47 on 01/01/2023. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included urinary tract infection, Stage 4 (severe) chronic kidney disease, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, and unspecified cardiomyopathy. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/05/2025, revealed Resident #47 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-15 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of manufacturer's instructions for medication administration, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Three medication errors were observed during 27 medication error opportunities, for a medication error rate of 11.11%, which affected 2 (Resident #41 and Resident #47) of 3 residents observed during medication pass.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Medication Administration, revised 08/01/2025, indicated, 11. Review the MAR [Medication Administration Record] to identify medication to be administered. 12. Compare medication source (bubble pack, vial, etc.) with MAR to verify resident name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time. 17. Administer medication as ordered in accordance with manufacturer specifications. 1. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #41 on 01/14/2015 and most recently readmitted the resident on 02/05/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 medication carts were locked when unsupervised. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Controlled Substance Administration & Accountability, revised on 06/01/2025, indicated, It is the policy of this facility to promote safe, high quality patient care, compliant with state and federal regulations regarding monitoring the use of controlled substances. The facility will have safeguards in place in order to prevent loss, diversion, or accidental exposure. An observation on 08/12/2025 from 3:18 PM to 3:26 PM revealed an unlocked/unsupervised medication cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER] with no staff present. During the observation, the nurse came out of a resident's room (the door was closed) and walked past the unlocked cart and went on to the nursing station. Registered Nurse (RN) #7 locked the cart when she returned at 3:26 PM. During an interview on 08/12/2025 at 3:28 PM, RN #7 stated she knew better than 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 · Dcited before2022-04-21 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review and a review of facility policies, it was determined the facility failed to provide privacy/dignity during medication administration for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #9). Staff was observed to administer eye drops medication to Resident #9 while the resident was seated in the day room area with six (6) other residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident's Rights-Federal Law, dated October 2007, revealed the residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality to include medical treatment. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration General Guidelines for the Administration of Medications number 6.2, undated. revealed medications were supposed to be administered at the resident's bedside and if administration would expose the resident's skin, the curtain would be drawn for privacy. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/17/2021 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, and Glaucoma. Review 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 · D2022-04-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the facility investigation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #7). On 04/11/2021, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 was overheard by State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1 and SRNA #3, state she would smack Resident #7 in the face if he/she didn't calm down. Based on validation of the Quality Assurance (QA) Plan, the State Survey Agency determined the deficient practice represented past non-compliance, as it was identified and corrected regarding protecting residents from abuse, prior to initiation of the investigation by the State Survey Agency. The findings include: Review of facility policy, titled, Abuse, last revised 02/13/2019, revealed the facility would prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation for all residents. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical…
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 before2022-04-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for one (1) of three (3) facility medication carts. Observation on 04/19/2022, revealed the South hall medication cart was observed to be unlocked and unattended. The findings include: Review of the facility Medication Administration General Guidelines for the Administration of Medications policy number 6.2, undated, revealed the Nurse or Certified Medication Aide would ensure the medication cart was locked any time the cart was out of direct line of vision. Observation of the South hall medication cart, on 04/19/2022 at 5:10 PM, revealed the cart was fifteen(15) feet from the nurse's station and was unlocked with no staff present. Further observation revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 came to the cart at 5:20 PM and then walked away from the cart, leaving the cart unlocked. Further observation revealed at 5:23 PM, RN #1 returned to the cart and locked the cart. No wondering residents were identified, and no…
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 · D2022-04-21 · 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, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective infection control program to prevent the spread of infection for two (2) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #9 and #37). Nursing staff was observed to touch Resident #9 and #37's medications with bare hands prior to administration on 04/21/2022. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled, Medication Administration Infection Control Standards of Practice, undated, revealed the facility staff would provide safe medication administration to residents. However, the policy did not address the touching of resident's medications with bare hands. Observation of medication administration for Resident #9, on 04/20/2022 at 8:28 AM, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 prepared Aspirin 81 milligram (mg) tablet (pain reliever, fever reducer), Losartan 50 mg tablet (medication used to treat hypertension), Metoprolol 25 mg tablet (medication to treat hypertension), and Vitamin B 12 500 microgram (mcg) tablet by removing the medications from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-21 · tag F0888 — isolatedEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) staff member who was unvaccinated for COVID-19 due to a religious exemption, wore the required mask when providing care to residents. Observation on 04/21/2022, revealed LPN #2, who was unvaccinated for COVID-19, and had a religious exemption was wearing a blue medical mask. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Employee COVID-19 Vaccinations, reviewed/revised 04/2022, revealed the facility would implement additional precautions to mitigate the transmission and spread of COVID-19 for all staff who were not fully vaccinated (i,e., had not completed primary series yet, had a pending or granted religious/medical exemption, or vaccine was delayed for a certain reason, etc.) (CMS term) or up to date (CDC term) for COVID-19. (Facility precautions/mitigation actions to be taken, may include, but not limited to i.e., masking, social distancing, reassignment, weekly testing, use of N95 or higher-level respirator, etc.) Review of the listing 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 · F2019-02-21 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure 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, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was palatable related to seasoning of the food. Six (6) residents in the Resident Council Meeting conducted at 9:30 AM on 02/20/19 complained that the food tasted like the facility had opened the can, heated, and served the food. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Preparation Guidelines, revised 10/01/18, revealed the facility would provide palatable food to include using spices or herbs to season food in accordance with recipes. In addition, the facility would honor resident preferences, as possible, regarding food and drinks. Observation at 11:48 AM on 02/20/19 of a test tray revealed there was no seasoning in the regular and pureed green beans. The Administrator accompanied the surveyor with the palatability test. The Administrator agreed that the green beans (regular and pureed) tasted like the can had been opened, heated, and served. Interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) at 11:53 AM on 02/20/19 revealed the facility did not…
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 · D2019-02-21 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a person-centered plan of care related to respiratory therapy was implemented for one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents (Resident #35). Review of the care plan revealed an intervention for Resident #35 to get oxygen as ordered by the physician. Review of the physician orders revealed an order for oxygen at three (3) liters per minute (LPM). Observations of Resident #35 on 02/19/19, 02/20/19, and 02/21/19 revealed Resident #35 did not receive the physician-ordered oxygen flow rate. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Care Plan Interdisciplinary, dated 10/01/07 and reviewed on 10/01/18, revealed an individualized care plan would be developed for all residents admitted to the facility. The policy stated an updated and current individualized care plan was necessary to ensure each resident received the nursing care needed to treat identified problems that were specific…
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 · D2019-02-21 · 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
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 one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents (Resident #35) received respiratory care (oxygen therapy) according to the physician's orders and the comprehensive care plan. Resident #35 had physician's orders for oxygen at three (3) liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula; however, on 02/19/19, 02/20/19, and 02/21/19 the facility failed to provide Resident #35's oxygen as ordered. The findings include: Review of the facility's oxygen policy titled Oxygen and General Nursing, dated 10/01/07 (with a reviewed date of 10/01/18), revealed only licensed nurses and respiratory therapists were authorized to make changes in residents' oxygen administration and should instruct other staff not to change the oxygen flow rate. Review of Resident #35's medical record revealed he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation, Acute and Chronic combined…
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
$45,335 in federal fines across 8 penalties.
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $13,762 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
- $4,235 — penalty dated 2023-11-20
- $3,882 — penalty dated 2023-11-13
- $3,529 — penalty dated 2023-11-06
- $3,147 — penalty dated 2023-10-30
- $7,342 — penalty dated 2023-10-10
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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 185437. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-15, 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.