The Willows at Fritz Farm
2710 Man O War Boulevard, Lexington, KY 40515 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 54 certified beds · (859) 273-0088 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.0% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.7% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.5% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.0% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.1% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.0% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.5% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.8% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.79 | 1.94 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.54 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
73.3% 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 233 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.7% 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 92 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 73.3%CMS range 68.3–78.4 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 9.9–15.7 | 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 | 71.7% | 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 | 68.5% | 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 | 67.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.5–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 54 beds and averages 49.7 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.08 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.22 to 0.73 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of a job description, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 13 sampled residents (R), R20. R20 had a Velcro lap belt ordered on 12/01/2025 which was discontinued on 12/27/2025. Per an observation and interview, the lap belt was no longer utilized for R20. However, review of R20's Care Plan revealed it was not revised to discontinue the lap belt and was still an active intervention. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan Guideline, revised on 05/22/2018 and most recently reviewed on 12/10/2025, revealed that if a previous care plan was no longer needed, it would be resolved from the active care plan.Review of R20's Face Sheet revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 06/14/2017, and her most recent admission date was 04/21/2026. Her primary diagnosis was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with exacerbation.Review of R20's annual Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure that medications and biologicals were stored safely, securely, and properly according to manufacturers' recommendations for medications that belonged to 2 of 33 sampled residents (R), R48 and R32. In addition, two unopened vials of heparin, with no resident identification or directions for use, were observed in the same compartment as the ophthalmic solutions. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage in The Facility, revised 11/2018, revealed medications and biologics are stored at their appropriate temperature and humidity and medications that require refrigeration or a cool place were refrigerated unless otherwise directed. It further revealed when the original seal of a manufacturer's container was broken, the container or vial would be dated, and a date opened sticker shall be placed on the medication. The policy stated, No expired medication will be administered to 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 · Dcited before2026-05-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, 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 3 of 8 residents reviewed for meal service, Resident (R) 23, R39, and R52.Observation of the meal service on 05/13/2026 at 12:10 PM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 did not sanitize her hands between giving trays to residents and the residents' meal setup. In addition, she provided feeding assistance to R23, R39, and R52 using the same, unsanitized hands between each resident. Further observation revealed LPN1 had a personal drink at the table that she drank while providing meal assistance to the three residents. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Guideline for Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised 02/09/2017 and reviewed 11/18/2025, defined hand hygiene as a general term that applied to hand washing or the use of an…
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 · E2025-04-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's document and policy, the facility failed to provide a clean, sanitary, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 4 hallways, the 100 Hall. The findings include: Review of the facility's document Trilogy - Kentucky HC admission Packet 10.28.24_Combined, undated, revealed under the Resident Rights section, the resident had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside of the facility. Review of the facility's policy titled, Urinary Catheter Care, dated 12/16/2024, revealed the facility's staff ensured there was no disconnection or leaking of urine from the catheter system. A policy that addressed homelike environment was requested but not provided. Observation on 04/01/2025 at 9:50 AM revealed a slight smell of urine upon entrance to the facility. Observation on 04/03/2025 at 9:47 AM revealed a strong urine smell in the 100 Hall. Observation on 04/04/2025 at 8:32…
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 · E2025-04-04 · 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 the facility's document and policies, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 2 nourishment refrigerators, near the 300 Hallway. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Labeling and Dating Policy, dated 04/26/2022, revealed it was the purpose of the policy to provide education and direction on the facility's food labeling and dating guidelines. Further review found it was the facility's policy and procedure to place a printed or handwritten label for any food item brought to the facility. Per the policy, this food product label should have the received on date, production date, and the use by date for the product. The policy stated the label should also have the resident's name and the initial of the staff member that made the label. Observation of the refrigerator for residents' food near the 300 Hallway on 04/03/2025 at 9:55 AM and 10:48 AM revealed two opened tubs of pimento cheese with no resident name but…
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 · D2025-04-04 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to inform and provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and, at the resident's option, formulate an advance directive for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for advance directives, Resident (R) 5, R36, and R42. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Guidelines for Advance Directives, revised 09/26/2024, revealed its purpose was to ensure the facility's staff obtained and followed residents' advance directives regarding end-of-life care. Further review revealed if a resident had a living will and a durable power of attorney (POA) for health care, these documents would be scanned into the medical record by the admissions representative or designee. 1. Review of R5's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/18/2024 with diagnoses including dementia and atherosclerotic heart disease. Further review revealed Family (F) 4 was listed as R5's POA. Review of R5's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS],…
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 · D2025-04-04 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood. The facility further failed to send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 2 of 2 residents investigated for hospitalizations, Resident (R) 5 and R10. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy/document titled, Transfer/Discharge - Bed Hold Notification Process, undated, revealed a transfer/discharge notice was to be filled out at the time of transfer or discharge and included in the transfer packet that was sent with the resident. Further review revealed the Social Services Director (SSD) would notify the ombudsman as soon as possible, and this could be done via email. Additional review revealed the Business Office Manager (BOM), or designee would contact the resident/family/Power of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the enhanced barrier precaution (EBP) signage from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 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 2 out of 6 sampled residents, Resident (R) 31 and R36. 1. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 with the aid of Nursing Student (NS) 1 was observed pulling up R36 in bed prior to giving her medications. R36 had signage posted on her door that stated she was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a pressure ulcer. LPN1 and NS1 only had on gloves when pulling up R36 and did not have on a gown. 2. LPN1 was observed dropping a pill on the top of the medication cart and then picking it up with her ungloved hand and placing it in the pill cup with the other pills for R31.…
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 · E2020-01-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 interview, record review, and review of the Manufacturer's Recommendation for the Stander Be Independent Security Pole, it was determined the facility failed to take appropriate precautions to ensure a safe environment to prevent avoidable accidents for six (6) of thirteen (13) sampled residents (Resident's #5, #6, #9, #11, #25 & #44). Residents #5, #6, #9, #11, #25 & #44 had a transfer pole device installed in their room. The facility failed to ensure the transfer device was installed per the manufacturer's recommendations for safety. The facility failed to adhere to the Manufacturer's Recommendations for the Stander Be Independent Security Pole related to WARNING ENTRAPMENT AND FALLING HAZARD. Per the Manufacturer's Recommendations, when installing the pole next to the bed, couch, toilet or any object, the pole was not to be installed closer than the user(s) ability to safely walk around the pole or there may be a possibility of becoming entrapped between the pole and the side of any object adjacent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY HOLDINGS NT-HCI, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| REGIONS BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 07/20/2018 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| FIGHTMASTER, LISA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| BRYANT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/05/2016 |
| BUFFORD, RANDALL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| CONNER, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/03/2021 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/21/2017 |
| MEHAFFEY, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| PIETROWSKI, CRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| PROSKY, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| STREIFF, MATHIEU | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| BLAIR, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/03/2019 |
6 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.
This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185482. 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.