Lexington Country Place
700 Mason Headley Road, Lexington, KY 40504 · For profit - Corporation · 111 certified beds · (859) 259-3486 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $27,378 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-01)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- CMS ownership filings flag it as owned by a private-equity firm or REIT — a category that performs worse on staffing on average, though that average says nothing certain about this home, and CMS filings undercount these ties, so other homes here may have them unflagged (what the research actually shows →)
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 | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.9% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.2% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.8% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.5% | 29.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.8% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.7% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.3% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.8% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.23 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.59 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 114 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.1% 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 61 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 59.3%CMS range 50.9–69.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.9–15.1 | 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 | 31.1% | 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 | 32.8% | 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 | 24.6% | 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 | 98.7% | 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 | 87.9% | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 6.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.4%CMS range 4.2–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 111 beds and averages 82.8 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 28 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.64 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-05-01 · 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 interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of a fall for 1 of 8 residents sampled for falls, Resident (R) 13. Record review and interviews revealed R13 sustained a fall on 03/08/2026 at approximately 8:00 PM. R13 was observed to have a significant change in condition related to her physical functioning, mobility, and pain level. Record review revealed, however, the resident's physician was not notified promptly of these changes until the resident's family requested staff to contact the physician. On 03/10/2026, approximately two days after the resident fell, Resident 13 was diagnosed to have a fracture of the distal femoral shaft (portion of the femur just above the knee) with malalignment and soft tissue swelling.Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 04/30/2026 in the area of 483.10 Resident Rights and was determined to exist on 03/08/2026. The facility submitted an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 05/01/2026. The immediacy was…
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 · J2026-05-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and failed to keep residents free from falls for 1 of 8 sampled residents reviewed for falls, Resident (R) 13.Record review revealed R13 sustained a total of 10 falls from 12/29/2025 to 04/25/2026, including some with a documented injury. For one fall, on 03/08/2026, R13 suffered a non-displaced fracture of the right femur, extending to the resident's right knee. R13 was subsequently transferred to the emergency department and later returned to the facility on [DATE] and sustained a fall after transfer. Subsequent falls continued following hospitalization and surgical intervention. The falls occurred in the resident's room while attempting toileting, self-ambulating, or attempting to retrieve personal items. Additionally, interview and record review revealed the resident exhibited acute distress following the fall on 03/08/2026, including crying 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.
- Actual harm · G2026-05-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure a resident received necessary care and services following a fall when staff failed to perform a thorough assessment, failed to accurately evaluate and document pain, and failed to obtain timely diagnostic services, resulting in a delay in identification of a femur fracture, for 1 of 8 sampled residents, Resident (R) 13. Refer to F580 and F689The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Quality of Care, revised 08/01/2024, revealed the residents received treatment and care by qualified persons in accordance with professional standards of practice. The policy further stated each resident received care and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.Review of the facility's policy titled, Change in Condition, dated 08/01/2024, revealed the facility outlined processes for early identification, assessment, reporting, and management of a change in…
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 · E2026-05-01 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 5 of 25 sampled residents, Resident (R) 6, R13, R14, R26, and R93.Observations on 04/27/2026 and 04/28/2026 revealed in five resident rooms the privacy curtain was in disrepair. Further observation revealed trash on a bedside table and the floor, including used mouth swabs and a contaminated dressing and gloves; debris accumulation around the baseboards; and soiled bed linens on a bed.The findings include:Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Resident's Rights, revealed the resident had the right to be treated with consideration, respect, and recognition of their dignity and individuality.The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor requested a policy on housekeeping from the Administrator on 04/29/2026 at approximately 10:00 AM. The Administrator provided the Cleaning and Disinfecting policy. Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfecting, dated 08/01/2024, revealed housekeeping staff…
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 · E2026-05-01 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's document and policy, the facility failed to send a written notice of transfer to the resident's representative, including the reason for the transfer, the effective date of the transfer, the duration of the bed hold, and the facility's bed hold policy, for 2 of 3 residents sampled for Admission, Transfer, and Discharge, Resident (R) 13 and R96.Record review and interviews revealed the facility failed to provide responsible parties with written notification of hospitalization for R13 on 03/10/2026 and for R96 on 04/16/2026.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer/Discharge Policy, dated 08/01/2024, revealed resident transfers would be conducted in accordance with resident rights, physician orders, and regulations to maintain continuity of care. Further review revealed a written notice form would be placed in the clinical record and provided to the resident or resident representative. Furthermore, the policy revealed that at the time of a resident's transfer for hospitalization, written notice…
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 · D2026-05-01 · 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 review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to promote and maintain resident dignity for 1 of 2 sampled residents, Resident (R) 93.Observations on 04/27/2026, 04/28/2026, and 04/29/2026 revealed staff failed to ensure R93's urinary catheter drainage bag remained covered with a dignity cover. The urinary drainage bag remained visible to individuals passing by R93's room.The findings include:Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Resident's Rights revealed the resident had the right to be treated with consideration, respect, and recognition of their dignity and individuality.Review of R93's admission Record, found in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/23/2026. R93's diagnoses included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and aphasia following cerebral infarction.Review of R93's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/23/2026, found in the resident's EMR,…
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 before2026-05-01 · 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, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and review of the facility's policies, 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 and control the development and transmission of communicable diseases. The facility failed to implement its infection prevention and control policies and procedures and identify and correct problems relating to infection prevention practices for 1 out of 10 sampled residents, R93.Observation on 04/27/2026 at 9:16 AM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 exited R93's room. The resident was on enhanced-barrier precautions (EBP) for wounds and gastrostomy tube (G-tube). The nurse failed to remove gloves upon exit. She then obtained a cup from the medication cart with the contaminated gloves and re-entered the room.Observation on 04/28/2026 at 8:10 AM revealed Unit Manager (UM) 1 performed oral care for R93 and then held the resident's G-tube. Further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) web page, review of the facility's signage, and review of the facility's procedure, the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions as determined by observations during the initial kitchen tour and return tours. Observation on 04/01/2025 and on 04/02/2025 revealed dome lids were stacked wet. Observation on 04/01/2025 of food temperatures for the lunch service revealed an inaccurate temperature for puree food, but it was placed on the tray line for service. Additionally, observation on 04/02/2025 revealed staff changed gloves and performed tasks without proper hand hygiene. The findings include: Review of the facility's procedure titled, Dishwashing Procedure, dated 12/15/2022, revealed to air-dry dishes and keep them in a clean area to avoid contamination. Review of the facility's sign posted in the kitchen Use Disposable Gloves Properly, not dated, revealed to wash hands before and after use of disposable gloves and to change gloves frequently and between tasks.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) signage for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), and review of the facility's policies, 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 5 of 19 sampled residents, Resident (R) 18, R41, R56, R68, and R73. R18, R41, R56, R68, and R73 all had active orders to be on EBP. However, observations on 04/01/2025 to 04/03/2025 revealed none of the residents had EBP signage posted on their room doors of what the infection control requirements were when entering and exiting their rooms, for the resident, staff, and visitors. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control, Transmission Based Precautions, dated 08/01/2024, revealed descriptions for the indications 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.
“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
$27,378 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $13,689 — penalty dated 2026-05-01
- $13,689 — penalty dated 2026-05-01
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-05-30 for 11 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PHOENIX SENIOR LIVING — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 1 home this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as a real-estate investment trust (REIT). That’s a fact worth knowing: peer-reviewed research links private-equity and REIT ownership to lower staffing and more citations on average — though any individual home can run well or poorly regardless. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE TRUST — REIT · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- BLACKROCK INC — investment firm · 7.75% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- SILVER POINT CAPITAL OFFSHORE FUND — investment firm · 6.52% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- VANGUARD GROUP INC — investment firm · 8.32% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- H/2 SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES IV L.P. — investment firm · 6.18% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNH PROJ LINCOLN TRS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2020 |
| DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2020 |
| SILVER POINT CAPITAL OFFSHORE FUND | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/30/2023 |
| SNH TRS LICENSEE HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2020 |
| SNH TRS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2020 |
| ABP TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/30/2014 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/1999 |
| FLAT FOOTED LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2021 |
| H/2 SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES IV L.P. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/1999 |
| PORTNOY, ADAM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| BILOTTO, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BROWN, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/01/2023 |
| CLARK, JENNIFER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| PAULA, ANTHONY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/18/2024 |
| PHOENIX SENIOR LIVING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/08/2021 |
| CHEEK, ALLISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| DOODNAUTH, DAVANAND | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2017 |
| MARINKO, JESSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| PESEK, SETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/14/2023 |
| RAMEY, COURTNEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/28/2025 |
| WHITT, TINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| WICKS, CHASIDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/12/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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.
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 185160. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-01, 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.