Crittenden County Health & Rehabilitation Center
201 Watson Street, Marion, KY 42064 · For profit - Corporation · 101 certified beds · (270) 965-2218 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 28% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 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 | 9.7% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.9% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better 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 | 6.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.3% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.0% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.2% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.8% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 43.2% | 83.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.4% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.7% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.93 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.15 | 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.
51.9% 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 42 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.9%CMS range 38.7–65.6 | 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 | 12.6%CMS range 8.6–17.6 | 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 | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 identified | 76.9% | 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 | not 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 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 | 7.7% | 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 | 7.7% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 3.5–14.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.39 | 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 101 beds and averages 55.3 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.79 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 2.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-05 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician acknowledged the pharmacist's recommendation for a resident's monthly medication regime review for one of five sampled residents (Resident (R) 43) reviewed for unnecessary medications.The findings include: On 03/05/2026 at 10:12 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not have a policy that specified the timeframe in which a physician must respond to the consultant pharmacist's monthly medication regime review. Review of R43's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility the resident on 08/27/2020 with diagnoses which included heart failure, hyperkalemia, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis. Review of R43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/19/2026, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of R43's Consultation Report for the timeframe 11/01/2025-11/30/2025, 12/01/2025-12/31/2025, and 01/01/2026-01/31/2026, revealed no…
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 before2026-03-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore a gown when they provided care to residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for one (Resident 42) of one sampled residents reviewed for tube feeding, one of (Resident 33) of one sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury, and one (Resident 42) of five sampled residents reviewed for infection control.The findings include: A facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, reviewed 01/2025, specified, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Definitions: Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities. The policy specified, 4. High-contact resident care activities include: a. Dressing b. Bathing c. Transferring d. Providing hygiene e. Changing…
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 · F2025-02-07 · 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 facility policy, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food items in the walk-in freezer were not labeled or dated. Staff failed to completely cover their hair while in the kitchen. Staff failed to cover prepared food on the warming table. A cold food was not at the proper temperature for serving. These failures had the potential to affect all 61 of the facility's residents who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage Procedures, dated 08/2023, revealed, Food shall be properly stored to preserve flavor, nutritive value, and appearance. Per policy review, all foods in the freezer were to be wrapped in moisture proof wrapping or placed in suitable containers, to prevent freezer burn. In addition, they were to be labeled and dated with use by dates clearly marked. Observation of the walk-in freezer, at 12:11 PM on 02/04/2025, revealed five chicken patties, six hamburger steaks, five…
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 · D2025-02-07 · 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 multiple interventions on the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident (R) 37) of two sampled residents reviewed for wound care. Interventions regarding treatment orders, infection control measures, and odor control were not implemented in accordance with the resident's care plan. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Assessment Comprehensive Care Plans, updated 05/24/2022, revealed the facility must implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. The intent stated, Each resident will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his other preferences and goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, effective 11/28/2017, revealed, the services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive…
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 · D2025-02-07 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide non-pressure wound care in accordance with the resident's care plan and physician orders for one (Resident (R) 37) of two sampled residents reviewed for wounds. The findings include: Review of R37's face sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included a fistula of intestine-enterocolic and colocutaneous, and a colostomy related to megacolon/abdominal surgery. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 09/04/2024, revealed the resident had a problem of an open area to the left buttock which was verified by the medical doctor as a chronic fistula wound. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 05/23/2024, also revealed the resident had an open area to the right buttock. The care plan goal for each wound was to heal skin and prevent infection. An approach to meet this goal was for staff to deliver prescribed treatment. Review of physician orders, dated 02/01/2025, revealed an…
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 before2025-02-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident (R) 37) of two residents reviewed for wound care. Facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene as indicated before, during, and after ostomy and wound care. Staff failed to use enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms even though the resident had wounds that required EBP. Treatment supplies, including scissors and ointment, were handled in a manner that did not prevent the spread of infection. In addition, hand hygiene was not monitored by supervisory staff as planned as part of the facility's surveillance/monitoring activities. The findings included: Review of the facility policy, Infection Control Program, reviewed 01/2025 revealed the purposed of the infection control program in the nursing facility…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility met professional standards of quality for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #40 and Resident #41). Although it was not within the Scope of Practice for a Licensed Practical Nurse to declare death or sign the Provisional Report of Death or Death Certificate, review of Resident #40's Provisional Report of Death, dated [DATE], revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 completed and signed the form. Additionally, review of Resident #41's Provisional Report of Death, dated [DATE], revealed LPN #3 completed and signed the form. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Provisional Report of Death Form, undated, revealed the facility was responsible for completing and ensuring completion of Sections A, B, and C. Part B was to be completed by the local Registrar, Coroner, or Hospice nurse and it was acceptable for a facility…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living (ADL) receives the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene related to incontinence care for one (1) of forty (40) sampled residents (Resident #17). Observation on 02/20/2024 at 1:20 PM, revealed a strong odor of urine in Resident #17's room, and the resident was noted to be lying in bed with his/her pants and bed linens soiled with a yellow/brown substance. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs)/Maintain Abilities, dated 03/2023 and reviewed 01/2024, revealed the facility would specify the responsibility to create and sustain an environment that humanizes and individualized each resident's quality of life by ensuring all staff across all shifts and departments understood the principle of quality of life and honor and support those principles for each resident; and that the care and services provided were person-centered and honor…
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 · D2024-02-23 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible. Observation on 02/22/2024 at 9:00 AM, revealed lancets (a small needle used to puncture the skin of the finger in order to obtain a small drop of blood to test blood sugar) were left unattended on top of a treatment cart on the 500 hallway. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Incidents, dated 11/2019 and reviewed 01/2024, revealed all incidents or accidents occurring on the premises would be investigated and reported to the Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing. Observation on 02/22/2024 at 9:00 AM, 11:05 AM, and 2:25 PM, revealed lancets were sitting in a basket on top of the treatment cart and left unattended on the 500 hallway. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 02/22/2024 at 2:25 PM, he stated he would normally lock the lancets and glucometer supplies inside the cart, but he just had not had time to do so. Observation during this…
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 before2024-02-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, it was determined 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 one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #34). Observation on 02/22/2024 at 11:05 AM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 performed a blood glucose finger stick on Resident #34, then doffed his gloves, and failed to perform hand hygiene prior to exiting the room. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control Program, reviewed 03/2023, revealed the facility would minimize the effects of infections on residents and employees and educate the staff by having an effective Infection Control Program. Review of Resident #34's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/21/2023 with diagnoses to include: Depression, Neuromuscular dysfunction of Bladder, and Type two (2) Diabetes…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake 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 Policies, it was determined the facility failed to provide means for resident(s) to directly contact caregivers through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for three (3) of forty (40) sampled residents (Residents #17, #35, and #36). Observation of Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on 02/20/2024, revealed the call lights for Residents #17 and #36 did not have a push button on the end resulting in the residents not being unable to call for help if needed. Additionally, Resident 17's call light was hanging on the wall and out of reach. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Standards of Nursing Practices, dated 05/2018 and reviewed 01/2024, revealed staff would respond to resident's request for assistance by answering call lights within a reasonable amount of time, within ten (10) minutes. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, updated…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 have an effective antibiotic stewardship program for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #75). On 11/03/19, Resident #75 was ordered to receive an antibiotic for an infected wound. However, staff interview and review of a Skin McGeer Criteria form (utilized by the facility to determine the eligibility for a resident to receive an antibiotic) revealed the resident did not meet the criteria for antibiotic therapy. However, there was no evidence that Resident #75's physician had been notified that the resident did not meet the criteria for use of an antibiotic. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Program, dated November 2016, revealed the facility would utilize McGeer criteria to assist in the recognition of infections and to ensure antibiotic usage was appropriate as part of their Antibiotic Stewardship Program. Observation of a skin…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ATRIUM CENTERS — 26 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 25 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORION OPERATING SERVICES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/08/2004 |
| OCS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/10/2021 |
| AMICUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| AMICUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/18/2021 |
| PAREDES, MIGUEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/18/2021 |
| FIFTH THIRD BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/07/2017 |
| JOHNSON, CINDY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/18/2024 |
| ZETTER, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| BAILEY, ESSEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/02/2005 |
| ALBRIGHT ROSS, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2018 |
| FINNEY, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2003 |
| ATRIUM CENTERS MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/18/2024 |
| ORION OPERATING SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/08/2004 |
| ANDERSON, CURT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| CHERRY, JILL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2025 |
| KNIGHT, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| MAURICE, SHARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/22/2025 |
| SUTTON, TRACY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/12/2022 |
| AMICUS PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| BROAD RIVER REHABILITATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| LEADERSTAT LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| OMNICARE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ORION PROPERTIES FOUR LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2004 |
| PLANTE & MORAN PLLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 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 76% 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 $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 28% 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 185269. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-05, 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.