No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Glen Ridge Health Campus

6415 Calm River Way, Louisville, KY 40299 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (502) 297-8590 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jun 20252 immediate-jeopardy citations
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (56%) runs well above the national median (45%)
  • about 19% 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
8111 Bardstown Rd · (502) 231-7680 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
6620 Bardstown Rd · (502) 231-1310 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Kroger2.1 mi
6900 Bardstown Rd · (502) 239-2115 · Call to confirm hours
Park
10310 Mary Dell Ln · (502) 574-7275 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 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 improved from 3 to 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.0%13.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.6%6.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%1.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms11.1%17.7%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.4%3.9%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.7%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication33.1%29.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine84.2%96.2%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.4%4.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control23.2%19.0%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table2.0%16.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.8%83.5%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.0%24.2%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit2.8%13.7%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.671.941.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.552.141.80better

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.

67.6% 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 345 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

67.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
80.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.60U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.28hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.24hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 80.5% 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 169 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 0.60 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF67.6%CMS range 62.3–71.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.8%CMS range 8.1–14.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge80.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge63.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge55.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.5%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.3%CMS range 3.5–9.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.001.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.23
RN hours/ resident / day
0.57
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.72
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.52
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.99
RN hoursweekends
56.5%
Total nursing turnover
63.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 63.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.23 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.33 to 0.99 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-05)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-03-15)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2019-05-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure staff implemented the care plan to prevent falls for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents, Resident #204. Record review revealed the facility determined Resident #204 required one (1) staff assistance for transfers and toileting and was care planned for staff to assist with transfers and toileting. However, on [DATE] at 4:00 AM, staff found the resident on the floor close to the bathroom, on his/her right side and back, when the resident attempted to go the bathroom unassisted. On [DATE] at 3:15 AM, staff found the resident on the floor when he/she attempted to go to the bathroom unassisted. The resident was sent to the hospital for treatment of injuries and later expired. Review of the Certificate of Death revealed the cause of death was complications from fall. The facility's failure to have an effective system in place to ensure care plans were followed…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2019-05-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, facility policy review, and review of the facility's investigation, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system in place to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents and injuries for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents, Resident #204. Record review revealed on [DATE] at 4:00 AM, Resident #204 acquired skin tears on his/her right middle and ring fingers and a skin tear along his/her upper back related to an unwitnessed fall. The night shift nurse found Resident #204 in her/his room by the bathroom. Per interviews, staff was aware the resident did not always use the call light to request assistance; however, after the fall, the resident's supervision was not increased and on [DATE], the resident fell again. Continued record review revealed Resident #204 had a second unwitnessed fall on [DATE] at 3:15 AM, when he/she attempted to go to the bathroom unassisted. He/she sustained two (2) skin tears, on the bridge of nose and under the left eye, a…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — pattern
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of manufacturer's information, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent (%). The facility had 4 medication errors out of 26 total opportunities, affecting 2 of 3 residents reviewed during the medication administration task (Resident (R)54 and R58), which resulted in a medication (med) error rate of 15.38 %. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration - General Guidelines, revised 11/2018, revealed medications were to be administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. Continued review of the policy revealed, the FIVE RIGHTS for medication administration revealed the rights included: right resident; right drug; right dose; right route; and right time and were to be applied for each medication being administered. Per policy review, The policy medications were to be administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber. Further…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-05 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for 1 of 16 sampled residents (Resident (R)54). The findings include: Review of the CMS Long-Term Care Facility RAI 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.19.1, dated 10/2024, revealed under section O0110: Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, O0110C1, Oxygen therapy specified, Code continuous or intermittent oxygen administered via [by way of] mask, cannula, etc. [et cetera], delivered to a resident to relieve hypoxia in this item. Review of the Resident Face Sheet for R54 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/21/2025, with diagnoses to include pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and atelectasis (complete or partial collapse of a lung or a lobe of a lung). Review of the admission MDS Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/25/2025,…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and facility standard operating procedure review, the facility failed to obtain orders for supplemental oxygen use for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care, out of the 16 total sampled residents (Resident (R)54). The findings include: Review of the facility's standard operating procedure (SOP) titled, Administration of Oxygen, last reviewed 12/13/2024, revealed, OVERVIEW Guidelines to properly Administering Oxygen and any Respiratory procedure. SOP DETAILS 1. Verify physician's order for the procedure. Review of R54's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted him/her on 04/21/2025, with diagnoses to include: pulmonary embolism, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of left lower extremity, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, atelectasis (complete or partial collapse of a lung or a lobe of a lung), pulmonary fibrosis, and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/25/2025, revealed the facility assessed R54 to have 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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

    Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from mental abuse perpetrated by a staff member for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse, out of the total sample of 16. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Procedural Guide, reviewed 08/29/2019, revealed the facility was to protect residents from abuse. Further review revealed Mental/Emotional Abuse was defined as the use of verbal or nonverbal conduct which caused or had the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, or degradation. Review of the Resident Face Sheet for Resident (R)214 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/11/2025, with diagnoses of emphysema, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute kidney failure, and acute on chronic diastolic heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/17/2025, revealed the facility assessed R214 to have 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 submit an initial report of an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within two hours for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse (Resident (R)214). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Procedural Guide, reviewed 08/29/2019, revealed Mental/Emotional Abuse was defined as using verbal or nonverbal actions which caused or had the potential to cause a resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, or degradation. Review of the section of the policy titled, Identification, revealed the Executive Director (ED) was responsible for notification to the State Department of Health (per State guidelines) and other agencies, which include the Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services (APS) and/or local law enforcement agencies, as indicated. Continued review of the policy revealed under the section titled, Reporting/response, revealed the facility was to ensure all alleged violations involving…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for one (1) of six (6) sampled residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #32). Observation revealed staff obtained Resident #32's blood glucose level and administered insulin in the resident's abdomen while he/she was seated at a table in a common area with five (5) other residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights Guidelines, revised 05/11/2017, revealed the purpose of the policy was To ensure resident rights are respected and provide an environment in which they can be exercised. Further policy review revealed facility residents had the right to be treated with dignity and respect and privacy. Review of Resident #32's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/03/2022 with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes. Review of Resident #32's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/23/2024, revealed the facility assessed 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents and policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resolution of a grievance for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #9). Interview with staff revealed they were aware Resident #9 did not sleep well at night due to his/her roommate's yelling/screaming out, and reported everyone knew about that information. However, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve the resident's complaint/grievance and ensure he/she received the care and treatment necessary to achieve adequate rest/sleep at night. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Concern Process, effective 11/13/2019, revealed, the purpose of the policy was To provide a process for handling, tracking and resolving customer concerns to provide excellence in customer service. Continued review revealed the facility was to provide an open and customer friendly atmosphere for residents and their families/representatives to voice concerns and problems to ensure their concerns were heard and acted upon. Per…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement the bowel protocol in accordance with physician's orders for one (1) of one (1) sampled resident for bowel management (Resident #213) out of the total sample of twenty (20) residents. The facility failed to implement the bowel protocol for Resident #213, when the resident exceeded 72 hours with no bowel movement (BM). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Bowel Protocol Guidelines, reviewed on 12/31/2023, revealed its purpose was to provide guidance for the use of bowel stimulants for residents with constipation. Per policy review, the procedures included upon admission, an order might be obtained to 'Utilize Bowel Protocol as needed for the newly admitted resident. Continued review revealed if the resident needed to utilize the bowel protocol, the 'Bowel Protocol' order set might be opened and orders entered from the order set for the affected resident. Review of the policy revealed the Ineffective Bowel Pattern Event should be initiated for any…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolated
    Provide appropriate foot care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary foot care for one (1) of seven (7) residents sampled for activities of daily living (ADLs), (Resident #3). Observation revealed Resident #3's toenails extended half an inch to one (1) inch beyond the tips of his/her toes. The findings include: A policy was requested regarding nail care on 03/15/2024 at 4:45 PM; however, the Assistant [NAME] President of Clinical Operations stated the facility did not have a policy that addressed toenail care. Review of Resident #3's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/25/2022, and most recently readmitted the resident on 12/24/2022, with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen level in the blood), chronic kidney disease with heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/21/2023, revealed a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) determined…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to assist one (1) of seven (7) residents sampled for review of activities of daily living (ADL) care, (Resident #3). Observation revealed Resident #3's feet were dry with a buildup of black, dry, and flaky skin between and under the toes. Additionally, the skin on the resident's heels was also observed as dry and flaky with a buildup of callused skin on the right heel. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Guidelines for Pressure Prevention, last reviewed on 12/31/2023, revealed to moisturize residents' skin with lotion or cream (if applicable) to keep skin soft and pliable. Continued review of the policy revealed to pay special attention to bony prominences and Keep skin clean, dry and free of body wastes, perspiration, and wound drainage. Review of Resident #3's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility originally admitted the resident on 12/24/2022, and most recently readmitted him/her on 03/25/2022, with diagnoses that included chronic kidney…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and implement appropriate safety interventions for one (1) of six (6) sampled residents (Resident #213) reviewed for accidents/hazards out of the total sample of twenty (20) residents. The facility failed to identify loose screws in a round metal ring that covered the grab bar in Resident #213's shower which contributed to the resident's fall on 02/09/2024. The findings include: The State Survey Agency (SSA) was not provided a policy related to the prevention of accidents and incidents. However, during an interview with the Executive Director, on 03/15/2024 at 1:50 PM, he stated it was his expectation that maintenance issues would be reported and repaired for the safety of the residents. Review of Resident #213's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted him/her on 01/04/2024, with diagnoses that included dementia and osteoarthritis. Review of Resident #213's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of one (1) of six (6) sampled residents reviewed for pharmacy services (Resident #209). The facility admitted Resident #209 on 09/25/2023; however, failed to ensure the resident's medications were ordered from the pharmacy until the following day, on 09/26/2023. Consequently, Resident #209 missed ten (10) doses of his/her routine medications on 09/26/2023, because the medications were not available. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Provider Pharmacy Requirements, revised in November 2018, revealed Regular and reliable pharmaceutical service is available to provide residents with prescription and nonprescription medications, services, and related equipment and supplies. Continued review of the policy revealed under the procedures area, section D the provider pharmacy agreed to perform the following pharmaceutical services provision of routine and timely pharmacy service as contracted, and emergency pharmacy…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-02 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff accurately coded the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents, Resident #41, related to falls. Resident #41 sustained a fall prior to admission and had a fall in the facility; however, the falls were not identified on the MDS. The findings include: Interview with MDS Coordinator #1, on 04/26/19 at 3:37 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy to ensure MDS assessments were accurately coded but the facility followed the RAI User's Manual to code assessments. Review of the CMS RAI 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.16, dated October 2018, Chapter 3, pages J-27 through J-35, revealed the facility should code item J1700A, Fall History on Admission/Entry or Reentry, as 1-Yes if the resident or family report, or transfer records or medical records documented a fall in 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program to help prevent the transmission of disease and infection for one (1) of fourteen (14) sampled residents, Resident #16. Observation revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 and Certified Resident Care Associate (CRCA) #1 exited Resident #16's isolation room without washing their hands. In addition, the Activities Director walked into Resident #16's isolation room without donning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and left without washing her hands, and entered another resident's room. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Guidelines for Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, reviewed 02/19/17, revealed handwashing was the single most important factor in preventing transmission of infections. Health care workers were to perform hand hygiene before and after having direct physical contact with residents. Review of the facility's policy, Guidelines for Contact Precaution, reviewed 05/22/18, revealed the purpose was…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 54.2-0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.5-0.5 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 53.3-1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Heritage TheFindlay, OH 1 of 5The Oaks Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterZanesville, OH 2 of 5Homewood Health CampusLebanon, IN 2 of 5Violet Springs Health CampusPickerington, OH 2 of 5Woodmont Health CampusBoonville, IN 3 of 5Cobblestone Crossings Health CampusTerre Haute, IN 3 of 5Creasy Springs Health CampusLafayette, IN 3 of 5Cumberland Pointe Health CampusWest Lafayette, IN 3 of 5Forest Park Health CampusRichmond, IN 3 of 5Franciscan Health Care CenterLouisville, KY 3 of 5Greenleaf Health CampusElkhart, IN 3 of 5River Terrace Health CampusMadison, IN 3 of 5Scenic Hills At The MonasteryFerdinand, IN 3 of 5Smiths Mill Health CampusNew Albany, OH 3 of 5Springhurst Health CampusGreenfield, IN 3 of 5Springs Of Richmond, TheRichmond, IN 3 of 5St Mary Healthcare CenterLafayette, IN 3 of 5Stonegate Health CampusLapeer, MI 3 of 5Sun Prairie Senior LivingSun Prairie, WI 3 of 5Taylor Springs Health CampusGahanna, OH 3 of 5The Willows at Fritz FarmLexington, KY 3 of 5The Willows at HamburgLexington, KY 3 of 5The Willows at HarrodsburgHarrodsburg, KY 3 of 5The Willows at SpringhurstLouisville, KY 3 of 5Villages At Oak Ridge, TheWashington, IN 3 of 5Waunakee Valley Senior LivingWaunakee, WI 3 of 5Wellbrooke Of CarmelCarmel, IN 4 of 5Arlington Place Health CampusIndianapolis, IN 4 of 5Ashford Place Health CampusShelbyville, IN 4 of 5Aspen Place Health CampusGreensburg, IN 4 of 5Avalon Springs Health CampusValparaiso, IN 4 of 5Bethany Pointe Health CampusAnderson, IN 4 of 5Blair Ridge Health CampusPeru, IN 4 of 5Bridgepointe Health CampusVincennes, IN 4 of 5Cedar Creek Health CampusLowell, IN 4 of 5Clearvista Lake Health CampusIndianapolis, IN 4 of 5Forest Springs Health CampusLouisville, KY 4 of 5Glen Oaks Health CampusNew Castle, IN 4 of 5Meadows Of Delphos TheDelphos, OH 4 of 5Meadows Of Ottawa TheOttawa, OH

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2021
NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME INCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2021
NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LPOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2021
TRILOGY HOLDINGS NT-HCI, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2021
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTERESTsince 12/01/2015
CORBIN, KATHYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 12/01/2015
FIGHTMASTER, LISAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 12/01/2015
BARNEY, LEIGHIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2019
BRYANT, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/05/2016
BUFFORD, RANDALLIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2019
CONNER, GREGORYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/03/2021
DAVIS, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/21/2017
MEHAFFEY, TODDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/31/2022
PIETROWSKI, CRISTINAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/31/2022
PROSKY, DANNYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/01/2015
STREIFF, MATHIEUIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/01/2015
TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/01/2021
HAWKINS, MARTYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/06/2021

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.

$11.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+12.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.8M
Related-party expense19% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 15%Medicare 23%Other / private 63%

This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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

$343per resident / day
operating cost
$10,434per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$392per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Kentucky
$9,718/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,254/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,528/mo
Assisted living

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 185461. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.

What to do next