Twin Rivers Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
2420 W. 3rd Street, Owensboro, KY 42301 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 132 certified beds · (270) 685-3141 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 5 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 | 13.8% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 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 | 0.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 4.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 44.2% | 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 | 3.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.7% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.3% | 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 | 84.1% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.8% | 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 | 1.38 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.71 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 8.3–16.2 | 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 | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 132 beds and averages 100.6 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 31 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.476 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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.
18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2024-07-26 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to issue the resident or their representative a written notification of transfer when the resident was transferred to the hospital for five (5) of five (5) sampled residents reviewed for emergency transfers out of a total sample of 25 residents, Resident (R)29, R36, R48, R73, and R199. The facility did not have a system in place for sending written notification of transfer to residents or their representatives. This created the potential for the resident and/or their representative to have incomplete information related to the reason for transfer, location of transfer and/or how to appeal the transfer, if desired. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Admission, Discharge, and Transfer Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed the purpose of the policy is to ensure the process of admission, discharge, and transfer meets regulatory requirements. Discharge/Transfer: . 2. Before the facility transfers…
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 · F2024-07-26 · 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 policies, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. These failures had the potential to affect all 95 residents in the facility who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, dated 02/2023, revealed All Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Food Code .All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. Review of the facility's policy titled, Environment, dated 09/2017, revealed All food preparation areas, food service areas, and dining areas will be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition .The Dining Services Director will ensure that all employees are knowledgeable in the proper procedures for cleaning and sanitizing of all food service…
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 · E2024-07-26 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Council's right to have their group meeting without staff present was honored and promoted for seven (7) of seven (7) residents reviewed for Resident Council resident rights out of a total sample of 25 residents, Resident (R)6, R12, R21, R38, R54, R56, and R63. This failure violated the residents' right to autonomy and to be able to bring up concerns without staff present. The findings include: R6, R12, R21, R38, R54 (Resident Council President), R56, and R63 attended the Group Interview conducted by the Surveyor on 07/25/2024 at 10:00 AM, in the Main Dining Room. Observation on 07/25/2024 at 10:00 AM, revealed two (2) activity staff and a dietary staff member sitting in the dining room for the meeting. When the Surveyor explained to the facility staff, the Group Interview meeting was closed to staff members of the facility unless a resident requested their presence, the staff exited the meeting. During the Group…
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 · D2024-07-26 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered according to professional standards of practice for one of 25 sampled residents, Resident (R) 81. This failure placed R81 at risk for inappropriate behavior, confusion, and disorientation. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed Medications will be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame .The individual administering the medication must sign the resident's MAR/TAR [Medication Administration Record/ Treatment Administration Record] after giving each medication, along with any additional prior or follow up requested information. Review of R81's undated admission Record located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/26/2024 with diagnoses which included lung cancer under…
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 · D2024-07-26 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 staff failed to administer a tube feeding as ordered by the physician for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for tube feeding out of a total sample of of 25 residents, Resident (R) 51. This failure had the potential for unplanned weight loss. The findings include: Review of R51's undated Face Sheet located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R51 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral aneurysm, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure with hypoxia, gastrostomy status, and tracheostomy status. Review of R51's Physician's Orders located under the Orders tab in the EMR, revealed an order, dated 06/05/2024, for Glucerna 1.5 calorie 1210 ml/day (milliliters per day) at 55 cc/hour (cubic centimeters per hour) by gastrostomy for 22 hours and to have a 50 cc/hour water flush for 20 hours per day. Review of R51's annual…
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 before2024-07-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure pain assessments were completed prior to and after the administration of PRN (as needed) narcotic pain medications for one (1) of two (2)sampled residents reviewed for pain management out of 25 sampled residents, Resident (R)19. R19 was ordered and administered pain medication; however, there was no documented evidence pre or post pain assessments were completed to measure if the medication was effective to ensure the resident's pain was being managed. This failure placed the resident at risk for a decreased quality of life related to uncontrolled pain. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Management Standard of Practice, dated 07/2020, revealed The facility works to ensure compliance with the regulatory intent of F697, that pain management is provided to residents consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan, and the resident's goals and…
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 · D2024-07-26 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications for two (2) of six (6) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a total of 25 sampled residents, Resident (R)79 and R11. This failure placed both residents at risk for side effects such as drowsiness and sedation. R79 was ordered Lorazepam (fast-acting antianxiety medication) with no stop date to reevaluate the medical necessity of the medication. Additionally, R11 was ordered and routinely administered Hydroxyzine HCI (an antihistamine medication) for itching; however, the medication was being used to control the resident's behavior. The findings include: 1. Review of R79's undated admission Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/31/2023 and most recently readmitted the resident on 02/12/2024, with diagnoses which included generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and restless leg syndrome. Review of R79's Physician's orders located in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · 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 facility policy, 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. The facility failed to follow infection control guidelines and facility policy during wound care dressing changes for three (3) of three (3) residents reviewed for wound care out of a total sample of 25 residents, Resident (R) 84, R19, and R81. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Skin Care Standard of Practice, dated 07/2020, revealed, .A resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing . Review of the facility's undated Clean Wound Dressing Change competency for the nursing staff, revealed .Remove old dressing .Discard soiled dressing and gloves in plastic bag. Wash hands. [NAME] [put…
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 · E2019-03-26 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 User Manual, it was determined the facility failed to ensure six (6) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents received an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment (Residents #2, #49, #93, #42, #83, and #50). The facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately for Resident #50 related to receiving Hospice Services; Residents #2 and #49 related to Oral/Dental Status; and, Residents #42, #83 and #93 related to pressure ulcer or diabetic foot ulcers. The findings include: 1. Review of the RAI Version 3.0 User Manual, dated October 2018, for Coding instructions for Section O0100 Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, Column 2 instructs to check all treatments, procedures, and programs received or performed by the resident after admission/entry or reentry to the facility and within the 14 (fourteen)-day look-back period. Record review revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-03-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Comprehensive Care Plans were revised for four (4) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Residents #9, # 17, #79, and # 81). The facility assessed Residents #9, #17, #79, and #81 to require the use of adaptive equipment for eating; however, review of the care plans revealed there was no documented evidence the care plans were updated to include the adaptive equipment. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, Standard of Practice, last revised November 2017, revealed the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive, significant change of condition and Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #9 on 01/05/18 with diagnoses which included Dementia. Review of an annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed…
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.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · E2019-03-26 · tag F0659 — patternProvide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.
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 provide care in accordance with each resident's written plan of care for four (4) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #104, #65, #83 and #100). The facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #104 related to oral care. Resident #65 related to assistive devices for eating. Resident #83 related to pain assessment; and, Resident #100 related to catheter care. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, Standard of Practice, last revised November 2017 revealed; it is the practice of this facility to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objective and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #104 on 11/20/18 with diagnoses which included Type…
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 · D2019-03-26 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for two (2) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Residents #60 and #45). Observations on 03/05/19 revealed staff entered Resident #45's and #60's rooms without knocking on the door prior to entering. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Standard of Practice, last reviewed September 2017, revealed all residents have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. These rights will be promoted and protected by the facility. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to privacy and confidentiality. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #45 on 01/14/19, with diagnoses which included Anxiety Disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set…
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 · D2019-03-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide maintenance services necessary to maintain an orderly, comfortable, and homelike interior in three (3) of sixty-four (64) residents' rooms. Observations, of room [ROOM NUMBER], on 03/05/19 revealed tiles in the bathroom that were uneven, cracked, and chipped, brown stained areas in the ceiling, and gouged and scraped wood trim along the walls. Further observation revealed large areas of peeling paint particles hanging from the wall. In addition, a storage cabinet in the room had multiple areas of chipping paint. Observation on 03/06/19, revealed a totally clogged sink in room [ROOM NUMBER]; and, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a slow running drain. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Position Description for Maintenance Director, not dated, revealed the duties are to direct, supervise, coordinate, and perform the activities of the maintenance department to ensure the center is maintained…
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 · D2019-03-26 · 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 review of the facility's policy it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for (2) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #2, and #49). The facility failed to develop a Comprehensive Care Plan for oral/dental care for Residents #2 and #49. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans Standard of Practice, last revised 11/17, revealed it is the practice of the facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Person-centered care means to focus on the resident as the locus of control and support the resident in making their own choices and having control over their daily live. 1. Record review revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of Mosby's Textbook for Long Term Care Nursing Assistants, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's), received the necessary services to maintain oral hygiene for three (3) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Residents #2, #49 and #104). The facility failed to provide oral care daily for Residents #2, #49 and #104. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/07/19 at 2:24 revealed she did not have a policy for oral care but used the Mosby's Textbook for Long-Term Care Nursing Assistants. Review of the Mosby's Textbook for Long-Term Care Nursing Assistants Seventh Edition, revealed staff were to assist with oral hygiene after sleep, after meals, and at bedtime. Many people practice oral hygiene before meals. Some persons need mouth care every two hours or more often. Always follow the care plan. Many people perform oral hygiene themselves. Others…
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 · D2019-03-26 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, with an indwelling catheter, received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #100). Three (3) observations revealed improper positioning of Resident #100's urinary catheter tubing and drainage bag placement. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Giving Catheter Care, not dated, revealed after providing catheter care, ensure the catheter is secured. Further review revealed the catheter tubing should be coiled and secured. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #100 on 08/04/17, with diagnoses which included Retention of Urine, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, and Acute Kidney Failure. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 02/21/19, revealed the facility did not complete the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) examination, as…
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 before2019-03-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the nurse who gave pain medication to the resident assessed and evaluated a resident's pain characteristics such as intensity, pattern, location, frequency, and duration prior to administering pain medication according to professional standards of practice, for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #83). In addition, the nurse failed to make the resident aware of what medication was being administered (Oxycodone). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Management Process, last revised October 2015, revealed the facility recognizes that each resident has the right to treatment and services to maintain their quality of life. The facility also recognizes that each resident reacts to pain in different ways, and that narcotics carry significant risk with use including side effects and abuse. The facility will react to the resident's pain control needs based on the resident's goals for pain relief and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-26 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
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, it was determined the facility failed to provide assistive devices for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Resident #65). Observations on 03/05/19 at 11:03 AM, on 03/06/19 at 8:36 AM, and on 03/07/19 at 8:32 AM, revealed Resident #65 did not receive his/her foam built up fork and spoon to enable the resident to feed self. The findings include: Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #65 on 06/29/17, with diagnoses to include Rheumatoid Arthritis, Feeding Difficulties, Dysphagia, and Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #65's cognition as intact with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) which indicated the resident was interviewable. Review of Resident #65's Comprehensive Care Plan, Risk for Alteration in Nutrition, dated 07/09/18, revealed an intervention for divided plate and foam built up spoon and fork…
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 BENJAMIN LANDA — 48 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLATSCHEK, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 09/01/2018 |
| PLATSCHEK, GOLDIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 09/01/2018 |
| RUBENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 09/01/2018 |
| BON HARBOR RE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| WHITLEDGE, ALICIA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/05/2023 |
| KELMAN, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| RAYMER, MYRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/10/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 93% 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 $966K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 185087. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-18, 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.