Park Grove Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
1500 Pride Avenue, Madisonville, KY 42431 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 71 certified beds · (270) 821-1813 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- the CMS record shows $12,860 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-05)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.
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 | 16.6% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.7% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.6% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.7% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.5% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.6% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.1% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 36.7% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.6% | 13.7% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.94 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.18 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 67 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.0% 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 37 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 52.1%CMS range 39.2–65.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.4–15.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 46.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 48.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 35.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.2–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.30 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 71 beds and averages 63.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-04-05 · 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, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' comprehensive care plans were developed and implemented for three (3) of eight (8) sampled residents assessed for elopement risk (Residents #13, #40, #52, #53). 1. The facility assessed Resident #13 to be at risk for elopement and was care planned as at risk for elopement and exhibited exit-seeking behavior. However, the resident exited the facility undetected by staff on 03/14/2024 at approximately 4:10 PM and was outside unsupervised for approximately five (5) minutes. 2. Resident #40 stated in interview she had carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands. However, review of Resident #40's care plan revealed the facility failed to develop a care plan related to pain or the potential for pain, with necessary interventions for the resident. 3. The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #52 for his activity preferences. 4. The facility failed to develop 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-04-05 · 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, facility document and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide effective monitoring and supervision to prevent elopement for one (1) of eight (8) sampled residents assessed for elopement risk (Resident #13), out of the total resident sample of twenty-five (25). The facility assessed Resident #13 as at risk for elopement and care planned him/her for the elopement risk, Interventions included utilizing and monitoring a security bracelet for Resident #13 as per protocol. However, on 03/14/2024, facility staff failed to follow the resident's interventions, and allowed Resident #13, whose mobility was per wheelchair, to exit the facility without staffs' knowledge at approximately 4:10 PM. Resident #13 was located unsupervised outside the facility approximately five (5) minutes later. The facility's failure to have an effective system in place to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent elopement has caused or is…
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 before2025-06-05 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food was not dated at the time of storage. Opened food was not covered and/or sealed to prevent contamination. This failure had the potential to affect 52 of the facility's 52 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage, dated 2019, revealed food would be stored by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross-contamination. Further review revealed food would be stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely and each item would be clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated. Additionally, all frozen foods should be covered, labeled, and dated. a. Observation of the kitchen, on 06/03/2025 at 10:07 AM, revealed Refrigerator1's contents included four loaves of bread, one package of hot dog buns, and one package of rolls that were not dated when stored. b. Observation of Freezer1 revealed its contents included one…
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 before2025-06-05 · 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, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet mental and psychosocial needs for one (Resident (R) 2) of three residents reviewed for activity care plans. The resident's care plan for the television (TV) to be on at all times was not consistently followed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Care Plan Policy, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the policy statement stated, The facility will develop and implement a person-centered care plan for each resident, that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Per the policy, The Licensed Nurses and/or Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) develops and maintains a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain . The Comprehensive Care Plan will be…
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 before2024-04-05 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, and review of the Kentucky Food Guide 2013 Food Code guidance, the facility failed to provide food at a palatable temperature for two (2) residents (Resident #1 and Resident #52). In addition, the facility failed to ensure point of service temperatures (temps) were within acceptable levels. Observation of the 400 Hall lunch meal on 04/02/2024 revealed the hot foods were below the acceptable levels for the point of service temps. The cold food/beverages were above the acceptable levels for the point of service temps. The findings include: Review of the Kentucky Food Guide 2013 Food Code guidance revealed hot foods should be 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or greater and cold food/beverage products should be 41 F degrees or less. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Preparation and Service, revised November 2022, revealed food and nutrition services employees were to prepare, distribute and serve food in a manner that complied with safe food handling practices. Continued review revealed,Danger Zone meant temperatures above…
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 · F2024-04-05 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespreadEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and facility's policy review, Resident Matrix, and staff personnel files review, the facility failed to provide at least twelve (12) hours of required in-service training for nurse aides including dementia management training and resident abuse prevention training for 5 of 5 State Registered Nurse Aides (SRNA). (SRNA's #4, #9, #10, #12 and #13 ). This had the potential to affect the facility's fifty-eight (58) residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, dated 08/2022, revealed the facility was to provide a sufficient number of nursing staff. Continued review revealed the nursing staff were to have appropriate skills and competency necessary to provide nursing and related care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility's assessment. Per policy review, Competency was a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needed to perform work, roles, or occupational functions successfully.…
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 · E2024-04-05 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an ongoing program of activities was developed to meet the resident's individual needs for four (4) of six (6) sampled residents (Residents #15, #38, #52, and #53). The facility failed to provide individualized activities based on residents' comprehensive assessments, care plans, and personal preferences. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Activity Programs, revised June 2018, revealed an activity program was to be designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Continued review revealed the activities offered were to be based on the comprehensive resident-centered assessments and the preferences of each resident. 1. Review of Resident #15's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/27/2023, with diagnoses to include: traumatic brain injury, major depressive…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for one (1) of six (6) sampled residents (Resident #1). Observation of Resident #1 on 04/03/2024, revealed the resident's catheter bag had no dignity cover in place. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dignity, revised February 2021, revealed each resident was to be cared for in a manner that promoted and enhanced his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Review of Resident #1s admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/21/2023, with diagnoses to include: urinary retention, myelodysplastic syndrome, and major depressive disorder, severe with psychotic symptoms. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 facility policy, the facility failed to ensure each resident had an active Advance Directive order in place for five (5 ) of 25 sampled residents (Residents #8, #9, #22, #28, and #61). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Advance Directives, dated 09/2022 revealed residents had the right to formulate an advanced directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment. Further review revealed Advanced Directives were to be honored by state law and facility policy. Review of the facility's policy titled, Do Not Resuscitate Order, dated 03/2021 revealed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders must be signed by the resident's attending physician on the physician's order sheet and maintained in the resident's medical record. Further review revealed the DNR order form must be completed and signed by the attending Physician and the resident or the resident's legal surrogate as permitted by state law. 1. Review of Resident #8's…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to implement procedures that addressed and monitored the safe storage and handling of medications. Review of one (1) of two (2) medication storage refrigerator's, Refrigerator and Freezer Temperature Logs documentation revealed the facility failed to record temperatures for that refrigerator for three (3) days. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals, revised 08/07/2023, revealed the facility was to inspect nursing station storage areas for proper storage compliance on a regularly scheduled basis. Continued review revealed the facility was to ensure medications and biologicals were stored at the appropriate temperatures according to the United States Pharmacopoeia guidelines for temperature ranges. Review further revealed the facility should monitor the temperature of medication storage areas at least once a day, and the temperature of vaccines twice a day. Observation on 04/04/2024 at 10:25 AM…
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 before2023-02-21 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observations revealed that opened food items in the facility's pull-out refrigerator were not labeled or dated. Continued observations revealed other food items were not covered. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage; Cold Foods, revised 04/2018, revealed all Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, would be appropriately stored in accordance with the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food code. Further review revealed all foods would be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled, dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross-contamination. Observation of the facility's kitchen area with the Dietary Cook, on 02/13/2023 at 11:12 AM, revealed the reach-in refrigerator had one plate of salad with meat, wrapped with plastic but was not labeled or dated, two (2) bowls of labeled applesauce were not dated and a tray…
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 · D2023-02-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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) Version 3.0 User Manual, it was determined the facility failed to ensure its Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments accurately reflected the status for two (2) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #270 and Resident #68). 1. Review of Resident #270 MDS Assessments did not accurately reflect the residents' previous falls. (Refer to F-689) 2. Review of Resident #68's MDS Assessment did not accurately reflect the resident's discharge location. The findings include: Interview with the Administrator, on 02/21/2022 at 4:17 PM, revealed the facility utilized the RAI Manual to complete the MDS Assessments. Review of the CMS RAI Manual, dated 10/01/2019, revealed it was important that information obtained would cover the same observation period as specified by the MDS items on the Assessment. Per review, the information would be validated for accuracy by the Interdisciplinary…
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 before2023-02-21 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of forty-four (44) sample residents (Resident #26) care plan was developed to include the resident's need for Hemodialysis. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Person-Centered Care Plan, revised on 10/24/2022, revealed the facility would develop and implement a person-centered care that met professional standards of quality care. Further review revealed the care plan would be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments, and as needed to reflect the response to changing needs and goals. Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed the facility admitted Resident #26 on 12/23/2022, with diagnoses that included: End-stage renal disease (ESRD), Acquired Absence of Left Leg Below Knee and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. Review of the five (5) Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/27/2022, revealed the resident was assessed to have a Brief Interview…
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 · D2023-02-21 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents, (Resident #49) was not administered a psychotropic medication without an appropriate diagnosis. Resident #49 was administered an antipsychotic for a diagnosis of Agitation, which was not a medication that was appropriate for the given diagnosis. The findings include: Review of the policy titled, Psychotropic Medication Use, revised on 10/24/2022, revealed Psychotropic drugs included but were not limited to antipsychotics, anti-anxiety, antidepressants, or sedative-hypnotics that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. Further review of the policy revealed the facility would comply with the psychopharmacologic Dosage Guidelines created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the State Operations Manual, and all other Applicable Law relating to the use of psychopharmacologic medications including gradual dose reductions. A continued review of the policy revealed psychotropic…
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 before2023-02-21 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for the lunch meals served on 02/14/2023 and 02/15/2023 for four (4) of fourty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #21, Resident #55, Resident #30, and Resident #29). On 02/14/2023, the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor requested a point of service test tray. The tray was delivered at 1:05 PM and was served an aluminum foil covered pureed tray with tea, because the facility had no regular meals remaining. The SSA Surveyor found the foods on the test tray were below the acceptable temperature and tasted bland. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food; Quality and Palatability, revision dated 09/2017, revealed foods would be prepared by methods that preserved nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. Further review revealed food would be palatable, attractive, and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Preparation, revision dated 09/2017,…
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 · D2023-02-21 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility failed to follow the physician's orders for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents (Resident #169). Resident #169 had a therapeutic diet order for Pureed Diet with Nectar Thick Liquids. Observation of the resident's meal tray and bedside table revealed the resident had two and one half (2 1/2) glasses of apple juice and two (2) foam cups of water that were not thickened to nectar consistency, as per the physician's orders. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Therapeutic Diets, not dated, revealed all residents have a diet order including regular, therapeutic, and texture modification that was prescribed by the attending physician, physician extender, or credentialed practitioner in accordance with applicable regulatory guidelines. Mechanically altered diet means one in which the texture of the diet was altered. Further review revealed that when the texture was modified, the type of texture must be specific and part of the physician's or delegated registered or licensed…
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
$12,860 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $6,430 — penalty dated 2024-04-05
- $6,430 — penalty dated 2024-04-05
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 ENCORE HEALTH PARTNERS — 12 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENCORE PARENT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/20/2023 |
| ENCORE INVESTORS 2 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/20/2023 |
| ENCORE INVESTORS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/20/2023 |
| GRINSPAN, ELI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/20/2023 |
| GRINSPAN, ISAAC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/20/2023 |
| RUBENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/20/2023 |
| ZOBERMAN, SARAH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| 1500 PRIDE AVENUE REALTY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| CBRE CAPITAL MARKETS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| FISCHEL, MAYER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| ENCORE HEALTH PARTNERS 2 LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2025 |
| BISSELL, ALLISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/05/2023 |
| ENCORE REALTY 2 LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| GEFNER FAMILY HOLDING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| J & R FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| J&R KC DERBY KY FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| KC DERBY KY JV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| KC DERBY KY PARENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| KC DERBY KY PARTNERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| LANDAU FAMILY INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| PERIGROVE 1034 LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| BLOOM, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| DENLEY, CANDY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/06/2024 |
| PATEL, HARSHUL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/29/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
15 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.
About 74% 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 $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185012. 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.