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

Highlands Nursing and Rehabilitation

1705 Stevens Avenue, Louisville, KY 40205 · For profit - Corporation · 154 certified beds · (502) 451-7330 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (502) 451-7330 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0606) — cited Feb 2025Resident-funds citation (F0565)2 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$17,523 in federal fines1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0606), cited Feb 2025
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $17,523 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-23)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★ 1/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2908 Taylorsville Rd · (502) 324-5416 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1169 Eastern Pkwy Ste 1110 · (502) 709-5532 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1351 Bardstown Rd · (502) 454-3931 · Call to confirm hours
Park
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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating2★
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 increased7.6%13.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.0%6.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%1.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms37.0%17.7%6.5%worse 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 injury5.5%3.9%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.6%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication8.5%29.8%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.6%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.1%4.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control26.4%19.0%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.8%16.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.7%1.7%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine76.9%83.5%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission34.1%24.2%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.9%13.7%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.751.941.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.582.141.80better

‡ 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.

11.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.17U.S. median 0.30
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.08hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 16% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 14% — 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 SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.6%CMS range 7.7–18.210.7%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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay6.9%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 worsened3.5%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 hospitalization7.5%CMS range 4.1–14.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.211.02Oct 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

0.89
RN hours/ resident / day
0.54
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.94
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.37
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.82
RN hoursweekends
38.7%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 154 beds and averages 144.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.77 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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

1 ↓
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-02)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-28)

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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-03-23 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for one (1) of three (3) residents sampled related to elopement (Resident #642). Upon admission, the facility assessed Resident #642 as a high risk for wandering/elopement. However, the facility failed to care plan the resident for his/her high risk for wandering/elopement. Resident #642 exited through the front door and left the faciity on [DATE]. Resident #642 returned to his/her home located eighty-five (85) miles away. Resident #642 did not return to the facility. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 03/12/2024 and was determined to exist on 01/07/2023 in the areas of 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan, F 655; and 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care, F689 at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of an J. The facility was notified of the the Immediate Jeopardy on 03/15/2024. The facility provided an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan on 03/23/2024, alleging abatement 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-03-23 · 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 observation, interview, record review, review of facility policy, and Internet Google Maps, the facility failed to ensure all residents were in a safe and supervised environment to prevent elopement for one (1) of three (3) residents sampled for elopement (Resident #642). The facility admitted Resident #642 on 01/05/2023 and he/she eloped from the facility on 01/07/2023 and did not return. The resident exited out the facility's front door when the receptionist, not knowing he/she was a resident, opened the door to let him/her out. Resident #642 was located 85 miles away from the facility. The facility failed to increase the resident's supervision to promote his/her safety, after learning the resident was at high risk for elopement. The facility's failure to ensure its policies were implemented related to elopement has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 03/12/2024, and was determined to exist on 01/07/2023 in…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that three of three residents reviewed for medications (Residents (R) 5, R126, and R135) were free from significant medication errors. Facility staff failed to follow physician orders and administered blood pressure medications outside of ordered parameters. These errors are considered significant because these medications are critical in preventing life=threatening complications by managing blood pressure. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy, titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2019, revealed Policy Statement, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The policy noted, Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders. The individual administering the medication checks the label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication.1. Review of R126's electronic medical record's (EMR) Face Sheet revealed 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-02-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Necessary Maintenance and Housekeeping was not provided in order to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Observation during tour of the building on 02/24/2025 revealed the following: There was a foul odor that smelled of stale urine noted throughout the 1C Unit hallway. The bathroom for room [ROOM NUMBER] had the appearance of dried urine on the floor and the room smelled liked strong stale urine. Additionally, the baseboard surrounding the sink in room [ROOM NUMBER] was pulled away from the sink and pulled away from the section of wall adjacent to the sink. The bathroom for room [ROOM NUMBER] had paint peeling off the wall around the plumbing, ceiling tile was sagging and there was a large water stain on the ceiling tile. The bathroom for room [ROOM NUMBER] smelled like old stale urine, the toilet was missing a seat, and the ceiling tile above 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 · D2025-02-28 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolated
    Not 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

    Based on personnel files, facility policies, Kentucky regulation KRS 216.789 (1), and KRS 216.718 (4), the facility failed to ensure it did not employ or otherwise engage individuals with a disqualifying criminal conviction or finding in the State Nurse Aide Abuse Registry for three of 10 employee files reviewed. Review of the Cook's background check, Statewide Criminal Repository, revealed a Felony Burglary, 3rd degree with a Guilty disposition on 06/02/2016. Additionally, there was no documented evidence Nurse Aide (NA) Abuse Registry checks were completed for the Cook, Business Office Manager, or Administrative Assistant, prior to employment. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, revised 03/2021, revealed the facility conducted employee background checks per state and federal regulations, and will not knowingly employ or otherwise engage any individual who has been convicted of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation. The facility abuse prevention program provides policies and procedures that govern conducting background checks to…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to send a copy of the notice of transfer to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 3 of 3 sampled residents investigated for hospitalizations out of a total sample of 29 residents, Resident (R)23, R95, and R107. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge, dated 12/12/2023, revealed the facility was to notify the long-term care ombudsman of transfers and maintain evidence the notice was sent to the Ombudsman. 1. Review of R95's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/14/2021 with diagnoses at time of survey including Alzheimer's disease, bariatric surgery status, and alcohol dependence in remission. Review of the facility Notice of Transfer or Discharge, dated 09/03/2024, revealed the resident was sent to the hospital after sustaining a fall at the facility. Further review revealed there was no documented evidence the form was sent to the Ombudsman. 2. Review of R107's admission Record revealed 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 · D2025-02-28 · 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for 1 of 29 residents reviewed for care planning, Resident (R)141. On 01/15/2025, a care plan intervention for a perimeter mattress was added to R141's CCP due to the resident sustaining a fall from bed on the same date. Although the resident sustained another fall from bed on 01/19/2025, the intervention for the perimeter mattress was not implemented until 02/28/2025, during survey. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 11/01/2024, revealed the facility was to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included an assessment of the resident's needs. Further review revealed qualified care team members responsible for carrying out interventions would be notified of their responsibilities for the initial care plan, as well as when changes were made. Review of R141's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/15/2025 with…

    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 · Dcited before2025-02-28 · 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, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 7 sampled residents reviewed for falls, out of a total sample of 29 residents, Resident (R)141. R141 sustained a fall on 01/15/2025 and was found lying on the floor by her bed. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) decided a perimeter mattress should be placed on the bed to prevent further falls, on 01/16/2025. However, the perimeter mattress was not placed on the bed, and the resident sustained another fall on 01/19/2025, when she was again found on the floor lying beside her bed. The perimeter mattress was not placed on the bed until 02/28/2025, during the Survey. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled, Incidents, Accidents, and Supervision, dated 12/12/2023, revealed the facility was to conduct investigations into incidents, including falls, to identify a root cause and implement corrective actions and interventions. Review of R141's admission Record revealed…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
    Provide or obtain dental services for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental care for 2 of 7 sampled residents reviewed for dental care out of a total sample of 29 residents, Residents (R) 87 and R95. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Dental Services, dated 12/12/2023, revealed the facility was expected to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services. Further review revealed the policy defined routine services as an annual inspection for signs of dental disease, dental cleaning, and dental x-rays. 1. Review of R87's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/02/2021 with diagnoses including early onset Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes, and low body mass index. Review of R87's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/23/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having both short and long term memory problems, as severely cognitively impaired, and as unable to make herself understood. Continued review 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · 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, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed with urinary catheters on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) out of a total sample of 29 residents, Resident (R) 75. Observation on 02/26/2025 at 2:59PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 touched R75's privacy curtain and sink faucet handles while wearing gloves. She then failed to perform hand hygiene and don new gloves prior to performing suprapubic catheter care. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 01/02/2024, revealed, This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable…

    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
  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-23 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure residents were: informed of their rights to conduct resident council meetings without staff present; and that visitors and/or other guests might attend resident council meetings only at the respective group's invitation. The facility failed to address and follow-up with Resident Council grievances, and further communicate the results to residents for seven (7) out of eight (8) sampled residents attending Resident Council meetings (Residents #5, #49, #55, #71, #101, #119, and #128). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Council Meetings, undated, revealed the facility supported the rights of residents to organize and participate in resident groups. Per policy review, the meeting minutes were to include issues discussed and recommendations from the group. Further review revealed the facility was to act upon concerns and recommendations of the Resident Council by making…

    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 · D2024-03-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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, review of the facility's policy, and review of the manufacturer's drug package insert, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological agents were properly labeled and stored in accordance with current accepted professional principles. Observation of the Unit 1B storage room revealed one (1) vial of Tuberculin (TB) Purified Protein Derivative five (5) milliliters (ml) with an open date of 02/12/2024 that had not been discarded after thirty (30) days per facility policy. Additionally, a pink jacket and pink polka dotted bag were observed on the counter on top of the pharmacy medication return tote. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, revised 08/2020 revealed medications and biologicals were stored safely, securely, and properly, following the manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Review of the policy under the Procedures/General Guidance section, item eight (8) revealed outdated medications were immediately removed from inventory, disposed of according to procedures for…

    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 · D2024-03-23 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the call system was accessible to residents while in their bed, chair or other sleeping accommodations for two (2) of seventy-five (75) sampled residents (Resident #22 and Resident #76). Observation on 03/21/2024 revealed Resident #22's and Resident #76's call lights were attached to the wall behind the head of their beds, out of their reach. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, undated, revealed the purpose of the policy was to assure the facility was adequately equipped with a call light at each resident's bedside, toilet, and bathing facility to allow residents to call for assistance. Call lights would directly relay to a staff member or centralized location to ensure appropriate response. Review of the Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines, revealed staff would ensure the call light was within reach of the resident…

    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.

    Environmental 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

$17,523 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • $6,780 — penalty dated 2024-03-23
  • $10,743 — penalty dated 2024-03-23
  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-04-21 for 8 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to DAVID MARX — 10 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 53.1+0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 51.9+1.1 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 53.6-1.6 vs chain
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
HIGHLANDS NURSING AND REHABILITATION HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/25/2019
PRUITT, PAULIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 05/01/2023
1705 STEVENS AVE SNF REALTY LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 09/01/2019
BLUEGRASS CONSULTING GROUP LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 09/01/2019
LTC CONSULTING SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 09/01/2019
ALEXANDER, DAVIDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 05/01/2023
BOGARD, KENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 01/01/2025
CHAGUA, MARLONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 01/01/2025
CHAMBERLAIN, MARGARETIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 09/11/2023
REWA, ANGELAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/23/2023
RUSSELL, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 04/08/2024
SHATROV, ANZHELIKAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 12/02/2024
WOLFE, ERICIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 09/11/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 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.

$15.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+3.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.2M
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 88%Medicare 3%Other / private 9%

About 88% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$281per resident / day
operating cost
$8,528per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$291per 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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 185039. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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