Home of the Innocents
1100 East Market Street, Louisville, KY 40206 · Non profit - Corporation · 76 certified beds · (502) 596-1000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0603), cited Sep 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0610) — 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
- its independent health-inspection 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.4% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.3% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.7% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 19.2% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.9% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.3% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 81.8% | 29.8% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.9% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.5% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-02-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the care planned intervention to provide continuous line-of-sight monitoring was consistently implemented for one (1) of twelve (12) sampled residents (Resident #66). The facility developed a care plan that included an intervention for Resident #66 to always be within staff's line of sight when he/she was up in a wheelchair. However, on 12/14/2022, the facility failed to supervise Resident #66. Resident #66 exited the facility through the emergency/fire exit doors located on the Ocean Avenue Unit without staff's knowledge. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/10/2023 and determined to exist on 12/14/2022. The facility was notified of the IJ on 02/10/2023 at 6:05 PM. The State Survey Agency (SSA) received an acceptable IJ removal plan on 02/12/2023. The SSA validated the removal plan and determined the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed, before exit on 02/12/2023.…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-02-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide effective monitoring and supervision to prevent elopement for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #66). The facility assessed Resident #66 to be at risk for elopement and was care planned for him/her to always be within staff's line of sight when up in a wheelchair. However, the resident exited the facility undetected by staff on 12/14/2022 at 7:48 PM and was outside unsupervised for approximately eight (8) minutes. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/10/2023. The IJ was determined to exist on 12/14/2022, when Resident #66 exited the facility through the emergency/fire exit doors located on the Ocean Avenue unit and accessed the outside patio unsupervised for eight (8) minutes. The State Survey Agency (SSA) received an acceptable IJ removal plan on 02/12/2023. The SSA validated the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed, before…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-13 · tag F0603 — failed to not confine residents against their will — isolatedProtect each resident from separation (from other residents, his/her room, or confinement to his/her room).
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation F603 DBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from involuntary seclusion for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)14). The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, revised July 2024, revealed abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Continued review revealed abuse also included the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that were necessary to attain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of the facility policy titled, Protecting Residents From Abuse and Neglect 02.05.01, defined involuntary seclusion as separation of a resident, from other residents or from her/his room or confinement to his/her room (with or without roommates) against the resident's will or the will…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-13 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F607 EBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse and injuries of unknown origin were reported within 2 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)77). The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, KCC DTI Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, effective 11/2018 and revised 07/2024, revealed the facility was obligated to report a suspicion of a crime to law enforcement and report any allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property to the appropriate authorities, which included Child or Adult Protective Services (CPS/APS) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The policy also stated leadership team members were to report incidents/allegations to the state agencies immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-13 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
483.12 Freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F610 DBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it conducted a complete and thorough investigation for an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)75). The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, effective 11/2018, revealed the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Manager or assigned designee was to initiate an investigation of any allegation of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation. Further review revealed the QAPI Manager or assigned designee was to take immediate action to ensure the safety of residents.Review of R75's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/08/2025, with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy. Review of the Progress Notes for R75 dated 08/08/2025, revealed no documented evidence the facility noted discovering an abdominal bruise on the resident. Review of the facility's, Final Report/5 Day Follow…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received medications in accordance with professional standards of practice related a discontinued medication order not being communicated to the resident's school and pharmacy, resulting in administration of a discontinued medication for 1 of 3 residents sampled for medications out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)40).The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, KCC DTI Off-site School Medication Distribution, revised 03/2025, revealed the Resident Education Nurse Coordinator (NC) or designee was required to conduct daily order reviews to identify any changes to medication orders, complete a new order form reflecting any changes, and send it to the contracted pharmacy. Further review revealed however, no documented evidence the policy addressed completing school forms or updating the school regarding residents' medication changes.Review of the admission Record for R40 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
483.60 Food and Nutrition Services F812The facility failed to ensure food service safety in accordance with professional standards in regards to use of beard guards, which had the potential to affect all residents consuming food from the kitchen. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Personal Hygiene SOP, effective 06/27/2024, revealed staff were to: Wear suitable and effective hair restraints while in the kitchen. Additionally, review of the Infection Control - Kitchen section of the Dietary Rounds checklist (undated), revealed: All employees are wearing a head covering while in the kitchen. Review of the facility's training orientation packet revealed the dietary staff were required to review the facility's policy and procedure titled, Food Safety Plan (undated), Review further revealed dietary staff were then to sign and date for acknowledgement of the procedure for wearing effective hair restraints while in the kitchen.Observation on 09/09/2025 at 9:50 AM, revealed the Dietary Director, who had a full beard, was observed in the main kitchen without wearing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure its abuse prohibition policy was implemented, by failing to verify and maintain documentation of screening and training, including criminal record checks, for contract agency employees. This had the potential to affect all residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, revised October 2022, revealed; Screening 1. (The facility) shall make reasonable inquiries pre-employment/before entering contractual arrangements, and follow-up checks thereafter, and require applicant/team member self-disclosure to ensure that we shall not knowingly employ or enter a contractual relationship with any person or entity who: a. Has been convicted of a felony or any criminal offense including offenses involving neglect, violence, theft, dishonesty, and financial misconduct b. Is listed on any abuse registries c. Is listed as debarred, excluded, or otherwise ineligible for participation in federally funded healthcare…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to: Consistently monitor and document temperatures and sanitizer levels for the dishwasher to ensure dishes were thoroughly cleaned and sanitized. The facility failed to consistently monitor and document the refrigerator/freezer temperatures to ensure perishable food items were stored at safe temperatures. The facility also failed to consistently monitor and document the temperature of food on the steam table to ensure food was served at safe temperatures and prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dish Machine Temperature Log, copyright 2019, revealed Dishwashing staff will monitor and record dish machine temperatures to assure proper sanitizing of dishes. Further review revealed, 2. Staff will record dish machine temperatures for the wash and rinse cycles at each meal. a. The director of food and nutrition services will spot check this log to assure temperatures are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-10-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. On initial tour of the kitchen, observations revealed multiple food items not properly dated and/or sealed, boxes of food opened and not covered in a food preparation area, and refrigerated items dated past the 72-hour retention period. In addition, observations revealed expired foods stored in the dry pantry, molded bread stored with the bread supply, and a scoop in a container of thickener. Review of facility policy, Leftover Foods stated all refrigerated leftover foods were used within seventy-two (72) hours or discarded. Leftover cold foods were covered with foil wrap or freezer wrap and each tray or container was dated and identified. Review of the facility policy, Refrigerated Storage, revealed all foods will be properly wrapped and/or stored in sealed containers and dated and labeled. Review of facility policy,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185154. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-13, 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.