Spring View Nursing & Rehabilitation
718 Goodwin Lane, Leitchfield, KY 42754 · For profit - Corporation · 71 certified beds · (270) 259-4036 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $17,346 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-11)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 33% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 4 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 | 16.2% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 8.1% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.4% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.5% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.8% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.1% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 39.5% | 83.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.9% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.0% | 13.7% | 12.0% | 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.
52.3% 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 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 52.3%CMS range 39.9–63.0 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 8.1–15.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 2.3% | 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 | 4.7% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 4.4–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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 71 beds and averages 67.9 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.34 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2025-08-11 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's investigations, documentation, and policy, the facility failed to ensure its licensed staffs' competencies included active Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) certifications for 11 of 11 licensed nursing staffs' personnel files reviewed. On [DATE], staff found R71 unresponsive and without pulse or respirations. R71 had a Full Code status; however, staff failed to attempt and provide lifesaving measures. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE]. The Administrator was provided a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy Template on [DATE] at 11:32 AM and notified the facility's failure to ensure its licensed staffs' CPR certifications were current was likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death and constituted IJ. IJ was identified at 42 CFR S483.35 Nursing Services, F726, and determined to exist on [DATE], at a highest Scope and Severity (S/S) of L. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on [DATE]. The plan alleged removal 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-08-11 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the physician was immediately notified of a significant change in a resident's status for 1 of 40 sampled residents, (Resident (R)71). R71 who was full code expired at the facility. Staff failed to initiate CPR and failed to immediately notify the physician.Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE]. The Administrator was provided a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template on [DATE] at 11:32 AM and notified that the facility's failure to ensure immediate physician notification of a change was made was likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death and constituted IJ. IJ was identified at 42 CFR S483.210, Notify of Changes, F580, and was determined to exist on [DATE], at a highest Scope and Severity (S/S) of J. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on [DATE]. The plan alleged the IJ was removed on [DATE]. An Extended and IJ Removal Validation Survey was conducted on [DATE]. 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-08-11 · 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 review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was implemented for one of thirty-three sampled residents, Resident 71 (R71).Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE] and was determined to exist on [DATE] in the areas of 42 CFR S483.10 Notification of Changes at the scope and severity (S/S) of a J, 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Care Plans, 42 CFR 483.24 CPR, and 42 CFR 483.35 Nursing Services, at the S/S of a J. Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified at 42 CFR S483.24 On [DATE], at 11:32 AM the Administrator was provided a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and notified that the failure to ensure residents' comprehensive person-centered care plans were implemented was likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death and constituted IJ at 42 CFR 483.210 at F580. The IJ at F678 also constituted Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) at 42 CFR 483.25, Quality of Care. The IJ was determined to exist on [DATE]. R71 was care…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-08-11 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was initiated for 1 of 33 sampled residents, (Resident (R)71). Staff found R71 on [DATE] without pulse or respirations and unresponsive by staff. Resident was a Full Code status; however, no lifesaving measures were attempted. On [DATE], at 11:32 AM the Administrator was provided a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and was notified the failure to ensure residents were provided CPR was likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death. This failure constituted IJ at 42 CFR 483.24 F678, 42 CFR 483.10 F580, 42 CFR 483.21 F656, and 42 CFR 483.35 F726. The IJ at F678 also constituted Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) at 42 CFR 483.24, Quality of Care. The IJ was determined to exist on [DATE], when R71 was found without pulse or respiration and CPR was not initiated.The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on [DATE]. The plan alleged the IJ was removed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-11 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
AMENDED Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment that was reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment for three of thirty-three sampled residents (Residents 30, 58, and 59).The findings include: Review of The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.19.1 Chapter 1 Section 3 dated 10/01/2024, revealed the Resident Assessment Instrument process had multiple regulatory requirements, including the requirement that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. Continued review of the RAI User's Manual revealed the assessment process included direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts. Review of the facility's policy titled, Documentation in Medical Record, revised 03/01/2025, revealed it was the facility's policy that each resident's medical record contained an accurate representation 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 · D2025-08-11 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to formulate an advance directive at the discretion of the resident for four of thirty-three sampled residents (R) (R6, 22, 51, and 55). The findings include: Review of the facility's Advance Directive Policy revised on [DATE], revealed it was the policy of this facility to support and facilitate a resident's right to request, refuse and/or discontinue medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an Advance Directive. 1.Record review revealed the facility admitted R51 on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchopneumonia, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar type. Review of (R) 51's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed R51 to have a Brief interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. In an interview with R51on [DATE] at 3:45 PM, she stated that she was a full code. R51…
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 · D2025-08-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility met professional standards of quality for one of thirty-three sampled residents (R71). Record review and interviews revealed R71's provisional death certificate was signed by the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) prior to R71's death. The findings include: The facility was unable to provide a policy related to provisional death certificates.Review of the facility's policy titled, Documentation in Medical Record, revised [DATE], revealed each resident's medical record should contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation. The policy further stated documentation should be completed at the time of service. Review of the facility's policy titled, Death of a Resident, Documenting, reviewed 06/2025, revealed appropriate…
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 · D2025-08-11 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure performance review evaluations were completed for every Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at least once every 12 months for 4 of 6 CNAs' personnel records reviewed, (CNA2, CNA6, CNA17, and CNA20). The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Nursing Services and Sufficient Staff, revised 02/03/2025 revealed sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets were to be provided to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. In addition, the facility must ensure that nurse aides were able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents.The Administrator did not provide a Performance Evaluation policy. However, the Administrator's job description dated December 2018 stated job duties included: communicate policies, evaluate performance, provide feedback, assist, observe, and coach.1. Review of CNA 2's personnel file revealed the facility hired…
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 · D2025-08-11 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents requiring Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR).The findings include: Review of the facility's document titled, Administrator Job Description, dated 12/2018, revealed the Administrator was to lead and direct the overall operations of the facility in accordance with the customer (resident) needs, government regulations, and company policies. Per review, the Administrator's focus was on maintaining excellent care for the residents while achieving the facility's business objectives. Continued review revealed the Administrator's essential duties included monitoring each department's activities and evaluating performance. Further review revealed 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 · D2025-08-11 · 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, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of five sampled residents reviewed for infection control (Resident (R)73).The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 05/21/2025, revealed the facility would take appropriate precautions to prevent transmission of infectious agents. Further review revealed for a resident on Contact Precautions, staff should don (put on) personal protective equipment (PPE) upon room entry (gown and gloves).Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 02/02/2025, revealed the facility had established and maintained an infection prevention and control program. The program was designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development 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 · D2023-02-02 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within two hours for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #22) The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation revised 08/30/2022, revealed The facility would designate an Abuse Prevention Coordinator in the facility who would be responsible for reporting allegations or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the state survey agency and other officials in accordance with state law. Further review revealed the policy stated, Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies within specified timeframe's: a. Immediately, but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury,…
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 · D2023-02-02 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1). Specifically, the facility failed to obtain and document witness statements from the involved residents and any resident/staff member who may have had knowledge of the alleged incident, when Resident #1 alleged that Resident #26 hit Resident #1's arm. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised 08/30/2022, revealed, Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation: A.) An immediate investigation was warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occurred. B.) Written procedures for investigations included: 1. Identifying staff responsible for the investigation; 2. Exercising caution in handling evidence that could be used in a criminal investigation; 3.…
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 · D2023-02-02 · 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 observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe smoking area for one (1) of one (1) sampled residents (Resident #22). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Smoking, revised 10/28/2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe and healthy environment for residents, visitors, and employees, including safety as related to smoking. Safety protections apply to smoking and non-smoking residents. The policy further revealed, two (2). Safety measures for the designated smoking area included, but not [sic] limited to: a. Protection from weather conditions. b. Provision of ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. c. Accessible fire extinguisher. d. Prohibition of oxygen use in the smoking area. e. Located away from exits and common space utilized by other residents to protect non-smoking residents from second-hand smoke. Review of Resident #22's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted 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 · D2023-02-02 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — isolatedHave policies on smoking.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement policies in accordance with applicable regulations for smoking areas and smoking safety for one (1) of one (1) resident smoking areas. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Smoking, revised 10/28/2022 revealed, It was the policy of this facility to provide a safe and healthy environment for residents, visitors, and employees, including safety as related to smoking. Safety protections apply to smoking and non-smoking residents. The policy further revealed, 2. Safety measures for the designated smoking area will include, but not limited to: a. Protection from weather conditions. b. Provision of ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. c. Accessible fire extinguisher. d. Prohibition of oxygen use in the smoking area. e. Located away from exits and common space utilized by other residents to protect non-smoking residents from second-hand smoke. The policy did not address required smoking safety standards such as readily…
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.
- 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
$17,346 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $5,782 — penalty dated 2025-08-11
- $5,782 — penalty dated 2025-08-11
- $5,782 — penalty dated 2025-08-11
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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER — 79 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 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 78 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 78; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KY M53 SPE OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| CLEARVIEW KY SNF HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2021 |
| VUJANOVIC, MICK | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| KAPOOR, SANDEEP | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/24/2026 |
| MUDD, JAMI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| HC FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| ZANZIPER FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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 71% 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 $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 33% 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 185309. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-11, 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.