Essex Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center
9600 Lamborne Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40272 · For profit - Corporation · 128 certified beds · (502) 935-7284 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0602, F0606) — most recent May 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 21% 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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.6% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 18.1% | 17.7% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 2.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.7% | 29.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.5% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.7% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.3% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.59 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
42.1% 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 114 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.6% 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 57 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 42.1%CMS range 32.6–50.1 | 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 | 12.4%CMS range 9.2–15.9 | 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 | 45.6% | 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 | 42.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.4% | 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 | 95.2% | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.4–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.19 | 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 128 beds and averages 113.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to be free from misappropriation of property was maintained for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Resident (R)45, R10, and R158). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property, revised 10/15/2022, from the Administrative Policies manual, revealed the facility believed its residents had the right to be free from .or misappropriation of resident property. Per review, the facility would do whatever was in its control to prevent .or misappropriation of their property. Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, and Exploitation, dated 08/2019, from the Social Services Manual revealed misappropriation of resident property was defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Continued review revealed examples 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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolatedNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
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 document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure it did not employ staff having been found guilty of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment by a court of law, which affected 3 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Residents (Rs)45, R158, and R10), and had the potential to affect all residents that resided in the facility. The facility employed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 36, whose preemployment background check reflected a guilty finding for theft-receipt of stolen credit/debit card. In 01/2025, the facility, in conjunction with the local police department, identified SRNA 36 as the suspect in the misappropriation of Residents (Rs) 45's, 158's, and 10's resident funds. Subsequently charges were filed in Kentucky and Indiana, and a warrant issued for SRNA 36's arrest. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property, revised…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed and submitted to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within five days of forming the suspicion a resident's financial information was being used fraudulently for 3 of 3 residents sampled for misappropriation of resident property (Residents (R)45, 158, and 10). On 01/09/2025, R45 reported suspicious charges on his/her financial statement to facility staff. However, the facility failed to submit an initial report of suspected misappropriation of resident property to the SSA or conduct interviews with residents to determine if other residents were potentially impacted, or interview staff to determine what knowledge they might have had until 01/20/2025. On that date a second resident's family (R158's) contacted the Administrator about what appeared to be fraudulent transactions on their family member's financial account. Additionally, on 01/30/2025, a third resident (R10) reported to the Administrator he/she identified fraudulent charges on his/her…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility document and policy review, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choice for 1 of 2 residents sampled for skin conditions out of the total sample of 32, (Resident (R)95). R95 sustained a skin tear; however, staff failed to notify the physician and obtain an order for treatment and failed to complete an incident report and/or skin assessment. Staff then provided treatment to the skin tear without an order. The findings include: Review of the facility's Wound Care Manual of the policy titled, Skin Tear Dressing Procedure, version dated 05/22/2018, revealed to obtain a Physician's order and May Follow Facility Skin and Wound Protocol'. Per review, the Wound Protocol noted to cleanse a wound with normal saline or appropriate wound cleanser; if a skin flap remained to gently approximate skin edges and apply steri strips; apply a transparent dressing; and change the transparent dressing prn [as needed] or when wound…
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 · D2025-05-15 · 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to provide an assistive device in a manner designed to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident (R) 28). Staff failed to follow instructions for the use of a mechanical lift while providing care for R28. The findings include: Review of the facility document Active Stand Up Lifting, of the policy titled, Mechanical Lift, dated 04/2013, revealed, active stand-up lifting with [NAME] and Liko Safety Vest, (product designed to help with patient support and stability) revealed instructions for use of the stand-up lift, including directions to, Position [NAME] and adjust the width of the base, so that the patient's feet can be centered on the footrest. Further review revealed, Attach and tighten the strap around the lower legs. Review of the admission Record for R28 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/19/2023, with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (partial weakness on one side…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to take action to ensure nutritional parameters were maintained for one (Resident (R) 48) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. R48, who was clinically underweight, based on a low Body Mass Index (BMI), had orders for a nutritional supplement. The Registered Dietitian (RD) and medical provider were not promptly informed when the resident was not offered and/or did not consume the full amount of ordered supplement. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Weight Policy, dated 08/2013, revealed, The weight committee/care plan team will review and take appropriate measures to resolve weight loss or gain. Review of the admission Record for R48 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/30/2021, with diagnoses of adult failure to thrive and other symptoms and signs concerning food and fluid intake. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/21/2025, revealed R48 had a Brief…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to report suspected misappropriation of resident property to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within 24 hours of forming suspicion of misappropriation for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Resident (R)45). The findings include: Review of the facility's, Administrative Policies manual area titled, Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy, revised 10/15/2022, revealed the Administrator was to ensure the Division of Licensure and Regulation (Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Adult Protective Services [APS] were notified immediately but no later than two hours after an allegation was received for all complaints of abuse .or misappropriation of resident property. Continued review revealed for all allegations that did not involve abuse or had not resulted in serious bodily injury, the Administrator was to ensure the Division of Licensure and Regulation and APS and other appropriate agencies were notified no later than 24 hours after 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 · E2020-02-14 · 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 policy it was determined the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions. Observations on initial kitchen tour revealed opened containers of spices not dated; a box of cornstarch box missing the top and not dated; and a white powdery substance in a clear container with a scoop and not labeled or dated. In addition, observations of resident nursing unit nourishment refrigerator revealed resident food products not labeled or dated. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy Food Storage, dated 11/15/12, revealed staff labeled all incoming foods with a delivery date and/or open date or use by date. Review of the facility policy Food Safety Policy, dated 06/23/17, revealed the goal of the nursing facility ensured the safety of all residents and included the prevention of food borne illnesses. Residents had the right to receive foods brought in by family and visitors, and staff placed all foods in sealed storage containers and dated for the date the food arrived at the facility. Additionally, foods brought…
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 · D2020-02-14 · 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment for the storage of controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1976 for one (1) of two (2) medication storage refrigerators. The South Unit medication refrigerator contained four (4) vials of Ativan, (a Schedule IV medication classification, and a benzodiazepine with antianxiety, sedative, and anticonvulsant effects), which were not stored or secured properly. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Controlled Substances, dated 10/01/15 revealed under General Provisions 1 that controlled substances were classified by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 as follows D. Schedule IV drugs with less potential for abuse and included benzodiazepines, and all controlled substances were to be stored separately from other medications and under double lock at all times. The policy did not reveal Schedule IV drugs, which required refrigeration, be stored and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-12-13 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to develop an baseline care plan for anticoagulation therapy within forty-eight (48) hours for one (1) of twenty-six (26) sampled residents, Resident #62. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy Resident Care Plan, page revision dated 11/13/17, revealed the initiation of the baseline care plan began with the designated registered nurse (RN) upon admission of a resident. The baseline care plan included the instructions needed to provide effective and patient-centered care for the resident to meet professional standards of quality care. The baseline care plans included, but were not limited to the initial goals of a resident, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services, and PASRR recommendations, if applicable. Staff completed the baseline care plan within forty-eight (48) hours of the residents' admission to the facility. Review of the clinical record for Resident #62 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/11/18 with diagnoses including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to VENZA CARE MANAGEMENT — 25 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 24 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMMONWEALTH SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/04/2025 |
| CH COMMONWEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| CW COMMONWEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY SNF ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY SNF ASSOCIATES TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY SNF HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY SNF HOLDINGS TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| MKY OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| MS COMMONWEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| SKY OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| SS COMMONWEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/04/2025 |
| OAKWOOD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| STRULOVICS, JOEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| FLATT, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| GOODMAN, MENUCHA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| STRAUSS, MOSES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| VENZA CARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES KY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| VENZA CARE CLINICAL CONSULTING KY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| VERTEX FINANCIAL SERVICES KY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| MADISON, ADAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| OMORUYI, OSAWARU | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| BERKOWITZ, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| HERZKA, CHAIM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| HERZKA, YISROEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| JOSEPHSON, LEEYA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| KOPPEL, SAMUEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| NUSSBAUM, EPHRAIM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| SERLE, SHMUEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2026 |
| CH COMMONWEALTH PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| COMMONWEALTH SNF REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| COMMONWEALTH SNF REALTY HOLDINGS PARENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| CW COMMONWEALTH PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| ESSEX SNF REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY REALTY ASSOCIATES TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| KY REALTY HOLDINGS TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| M MELB PROPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| MS COMMONWEALTH PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| S MELB PROPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| S MELB PROPCO TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| SS COMMONWEALTH PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| EDWARDS, DIMITRA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| GWIN, SUZANNA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
| PAGE, GARY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/04/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 58 rows in the source record cover these 47 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
31 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 $2.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 185288. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.