Sayre Christian Village Nursing Home
3775 Belleau Wood Drive, Lexington, KY 40517 · Non profit - Corporation · 164 certified beds · (859) 271-9000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2023
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $7,901 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-09)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.0% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.8% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.4% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.6% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.6% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.8% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.6% | 83.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.4% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.50 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.45 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
31.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 36.7% 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 60 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 31.1%CMS range 22.3–39.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.2–16.2 | 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 | 36.7% | 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 | 26.7% | 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 | 33.3% | 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 | 93.0% | 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 | 85.7% | 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 | 1.7% | 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 | 5.2% | 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 | 7.9%CMS range 5.0–13.2 | 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 164 beds and averages 157.7 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.02 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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.
- Actual harm · G2023-11-09 · 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, review of facility policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #2). Resident #2's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 05/19/2021, revealed the facility failed to develop a CCP which specified how many staff members were required to safely assist the resident with a bath. Resident #2's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/24/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident as totally dependent for bathing requiring two (2) person physical assistance. On 03/30/2023, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #3 provided Resident #2 a bath without assistance from other staff. SRNA #3 stated she was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-11-09 · 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 policy and procedures, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free of accident hazards as possible and failed to provide the necessary supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #2). Resident #2 was assessed to require the assistance of two (2) staff to assist with his/her baths and showers. However, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reflective of the resident's assessed needs. On 03/30/2023, staff assisted the resident with a shower, without the assistance of staff, and the resident became combative causing the resident to sustain injuries which included a small laceration with some bruising and swelling; injuries to the eye; red markings on the left side of the neck; a bruise on the resident's right hand, and bruising on the resident's chest. The findings include: A review of the facility's policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-05-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve food under sanitary conditions. Observation of the Dietary Manager on 05/11/2026 at 2:00 PM, 2:20 PM, and 4:47 PM, revealed he performed hand hygiene at the hand sink and turned off the faucet with his bare hands.Observation of the resident nourishment refrigerator on Unit 2 on 05/11/2026 at 4:40 PM, revealed three clear plastic pitchers filled three-quarters full of a brown liquid substance. Further observation revealed one clear pitcher dated 05/04/2026 not labeled, and the other two pitchers with no date or label.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 2024, revealed the process for hand hygiene technique when using soap and water included to rinse hands with water, dry thoroughly with a single-use towel, and use a clean towel to turn off the faucet. Further review revealed all staff would perform proper hand hygiene procedures in all locations within the facility. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Safety…
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 · E2026-05-15 · 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
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 notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood as soon as practicable. The facility failed to ensure the notice included the reason, date, and location for the transfer, as well as a statement of the residents' appeal rights and the contact information for the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The deficient practice was identified for 3 of 7 residents sampled for transfer and/or discharge, Resident (R) 1, R7, and R11. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Hold Notice, reviewed/revised 03/05/2025, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold practices both well in advance, and at the time of, a transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave. 1. Review of R1's Face Sheet…
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 before2026-05-15 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective cleaning and disinfection program for shared resident-care equipment. This affected 2 out of the 3 facility's Hoyer sit-to-stand lifts, one on the 300 Unit and one on the 200 Unit.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Equipment, dated 01/01/2025, revealed cleaning was the removal of visible soil from objects and surfaces and normally was accomplished manually or mechanically using water with detergents or enzymatic products. Additionally, the policy stated each user was responsible for routine cleaning and disinfection of multi-resident items after each use, particularly before use for another resident. Per the policy, multiple-resident use equipment shall be cleaned and disinfected after each use. Observation on 05/14/2026 at 8:37 AM of the 300 Unit and observation on 05/14/2026 at 10:36 AM in the equipment storage area on the 200 Unit revealed the Hoyer sit-to-stand lifts located in a side area…
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 · D2026-05-15 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 policy, the facility failed to provide completed pre- and post-dialysis communication documentation for 1 of 1 dialysis residents, Resident (R) 5. Review of documentation for 12 dialysis visits for R5, from 04/17/2026 through 05/13/2026, revealed communication forms were either unavailable or incomplete.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Hemodialysis, revision date 08/23/2024, revealed the facility would provide the necessary care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences to meet the special medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs of the resident receiving hemodialysis. Further review revealed the facility would assure each resident received care and services consistent with professional standards of practice which included ongoing assessments before and after dialysis treatments and ongoing communication with the dialysis facility. Additional review revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 2 sampled residents, Resident (R) 12 and R99.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage, implemented date 01/2025, revealed medications would be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and be sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. Additional review revealed the policy did not address labeling medications. Further review revealed external products, such as disinfectants and drugs for external use, were stored separately from internal and injectable medications. Observation on 05/13/2026 at 4:08 PM of the 200 Hall medication refrigerator revealed one canister labeled F-Magic Butt/Lidocaine Cream to apply topically to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0847 — patternInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 documents, the facility failed to ensure residents and resident representatives were informed, using appropriate language, that binding arbitration agreements explicitly were not required as a condition of admission explicitly provided the residents or resident representatives the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing it for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for arbitration agreements, Resident (R) 32, R58, R117, R127, and R131. Additionally, interview with three residents (R58, R127, R131) that signed agreements, including one as recently as 04/01/2025 (R131), did not recall the discussion of arbitration or signing of arbitration agreements. The findings include: Review of the facility's document Arbitration and Mediation agreement, not dated, revealed appropriate verbiage was not included on the form. The form did not indicate it was an optional form for the resident to complete; did not indicate it was not a requirement for the resident's admission; and did not indicate residents or representatives had 30…
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 before2025-04-24 · 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, facility document review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, 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 6 of 34 sampled residents, Resident (R) 11, R34, R36, R119, R125, and R150. Observations revealed R11 and R34 had indwelling urinary catheter drainage bags resting on the floor; a gait belt was used on R36 without its prior disinfection; a blood pressure cuff was used on R125 and not disinfected after its use; R150's medications were placed on an unclean surface without using a barrier; R119's food was handled by a staff member with ungloved hands; and a dietary staff member's badge was resting in a resident's food. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Surveillance, dated…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 ensure the resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 2 of 4 sampled residents, Resident (R) 34 and R120. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, revised 01/30/2025, revealed staff would ensure the call light was within reach of the resident and secured as needed. Further review revealed the call system would be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, undated, revealed the resident had the right to a dignified existence and self-determination. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment, undated, revealed the facility would provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. 1. Review of R34's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident 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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's abuse and Resident's Rights policies, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents from abuse for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #20). Resident #21 alerted State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #20 on the morning of 10/13/2023 that during the night when he/she had been sleeping, Resident #20, his/her roommate, struck him/her on the head with his/her iPad waking him/her up. The findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse Policy, dated 08/27/2019, revealed residents had the right to be free from abuse. Continued review revealed abuse was defined to include the willful infliction of injury with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Review of the facility's Resident Rights policy revised 12/2016, revealed residents had the right to be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity, as well as the right to be free from abuse. 1. Review of Resident #21'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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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, review of the facility's policy, and the Police Report Number: 2023-00059001 it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and were not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #2). On 03/30/2023, State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #3 (Agency Aide) provided Resident #2 a bath without assistance from other staff. Interview with SRNA #3, on 10/31/2023, revealed she was not briefed on how to provide care for Resident #2 when the resident became combative during the bed bath and tried to hit and scratch her. SRNA #3 stated she held the resident's hands to prevent the resident from hitting her. Resident #2 pulled back, and his/her hands slipped. The resident smacked himself/herself in the face which resulted in injuries that included a laceration to the resident's right eye. Refer to F656 The findings include:…
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 before2020-02-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observations on 02/05/2020 of the nourishment rooms on the 100 and 200 unit revealed numerous snacks undated in the nourishment drawers. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Dry storage dated 2013, revealed to store, prepare and serve food in accordance with Federal, state and local sanitary codes. Continued review revealed foods would be labeled as to content and dated. Further review revealed stock will be rotated on a first in first out (FIFO) basis. Observations of the 200 unit resident nourishment room, on 02/05/2020 at 9:00 am revealed snacks not dated for four (4) ginger bread cookies, eight (8) strawberry delight cookies, one (1) oatmeal creme cookie and two (2) peanut butter crackles. Observation of the 100 unit resident nourishment room, on 02/05/2020 at 9:10 AM, revealed snacks not dated for five (5) marshmallow pies, one (1) ginger…
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 · D2020-02-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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, it was determined the facility failed to maintain clinical records that are accurately documented for one (1) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents (Resident #8). Review of Resident #8's Physician Orders revealed an order to Cleanse Stage 4 pressure wounds to right ischium and sacrum with normal saline, pat dry, apply alginate calcium with silver, cover with an abdominal (ABD) pad (wound dressing) and secure with pinc (zinc oxide-based adhesive tape) tape two (2) times daily, with a start date of 01/22/2020. However, review of the Treatment Administration Record revealed no documented evidence of treatment being signed out as administered from 01/22/2020 until 02/06/2020. The findings include: Interview with the facility's Director of Nursing, on 02/06/2020 at 4:32 PM, revealed maintaining accurate resident records is a standard of practice and there is no policy related to the accuracy of resident records. Review of Resident #8's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident 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.
“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
$7,901 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $3,950 — penalty dated 2023-11-09
- $3,951 — penalty dated 2023-11-09
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALLEN, BEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/28/2022 |
| BUCKLEY, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2020 |
| COLEMAN, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/16/1998 |
| DANFORD, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/18/2024 |
| FEY, JANET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/05/2024 |
| FLYNN, DOUG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/22/2021 |
| HERNDON, DARLENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2020 |
| HURTZ, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/24/2016 |
| KEINATH, KENNETHA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2020 |
| KELLY, JERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/26/2007 |
| LOGAN, WAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/28/2022 |
| LYNN, J.L | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/16/1998 |
| MOSSBARGER, EVAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/28/2023 |
| RING, RON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2020 |
| SKIBA, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/22/2014 |
| THORE, JANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/18/2024 |
| YEARY, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/08/2022 |
| DUNDON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2022 |
| GRIFFITH, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/09/2026 |
| HINCHMAN, ELISE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/18/2019 |
| PHILIPS, VICKI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/25/2010 |
| PRIDEMORE, MENDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/14/2024 |
| SMITH, SHANE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2025 |
| UPTON, PENNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/02/2021 |
| VENIS, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| CHRISTIAN BENEVOLENT OUTREACH, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/06/1984 |
| RICHARD, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 57 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185248. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-15, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.