Ridgeway Nursing & Rehabilitation Facility
406 Wyoming Road, Owingsville, KY 40360 · For profit - Corporation · 99 certified beds · (606) 674-6613 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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 abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0609) — most recent May 2025
- inspectors cited 8 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 1 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 | 8.0% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 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 | 0.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 51.8% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.6% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.5% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.4% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.0% | 24.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 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.
47.5% 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 56 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 30 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 47.5%CMS range 34.0–62.5 | 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 | 12.1%CMS range 8.2–16.0 | 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 | 63.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 93.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.3% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.5–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 99 beds and averages 95.3 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.97 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.67 is at or above 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 3.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.14 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
20 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2022-03-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of food product package instructions, and review of the facility's policies, and the www.website it was determined the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to prevent cross contamination of foods. The facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served at the proper temperature to prevent residents from receiving potentially hazardous food which could cause food-borne illness. This deficient practice had the potential to affect eighty-two (82) of eighty-four (84) current residents, as two (2) residents received tube feedings and not a meal tray. 1. Observations, on 03/08/2022 at 9:20 AM and 4:22 PM, revealed meat thawing without a drip pan underneath it, stored on the middle shelf of the walk-in refrigerator dripping red liquid on or near raw foods. Also, an observation, on 03/17/2022, revealed a whole, plastic wrapped pre-cooked ham, on the middle rack of 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2022-03-31 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's Administrator's Job Description, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the Administrator failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled effective use of its resources to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The following deficiencies were identified: 1. The Administrator failed to ensure that food leaving the kitchen was stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety; and that dietary staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. Observations, during the initial kitchen tour, on 03/08/2022 at 9:20 AM and 4:22 PM, and on 03/17/2022 at 4:41 PM, revealed uncooked meats, not stored on the bottom shelf, which had juice dripping on raw vegetables or butter packets. Resident and staff interviews revealed, on 03/13/2022 at the supper meal, undercooked chicken nuggets and waffle fries were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2022-03-31 · tag F0559 — patternHonor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
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 policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received written notice, including the reason for the room change/transfer, for eight (8) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Residents #6, #50, #72, #49, #3, #40, #60, and #82. The facility transferred Resident #6's personal belongings to another room, but when Resident #6 refused the transfer, the facility did not return the belongings for four (4) days. Resident #6 was upset and cried for four (4) days. The facility transferred Resident #50 out of a room the resident had shared with his/her spouse who had died in the room. The facility transferred Resident #72 several times who is a fall risk and has limited vision. The facility transferred Resident #49 who has Alzheimer's; the transfers caused confusion and behaviors. The facility transferred Resident #3 to another room. The move resulted in the resident having no social interactions with a roommate. The facility attempted to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2022-03-31 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — patternProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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 the facility's Social Services Director job description, it was determined the facility failed to provide medically-related social services related to the failure to advocate for residents and to assist them in the assertion of their rights. Residents were not assisted by the Social Services Director in voicing and obtaining resolution to grievances about treatment, living conditions, and accommodation of needs. Also, the Social Services Director did not provide services to meet the needs of residents who were coping with stressful events. This deficient practice affected eight (8) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Residents #3, #6, #40, #49, #50, #60, #72, and #82). The facility's failure to provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy was identified on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-03-31 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Resident #6) was treated with respect and dignity and failed to ensure the resident's right to retain and use personal possessions, including clothing. According to Resident #6, facility staff came into his/her room on 02/24/2022 and took all of his/her personal belongings to another room. Resident #6 stated he/she told staff to leave the belongings alone, and the resident refused the transfer. Resident #6 stated he/she cried and asked for his/her belongings from 02/24/2022 to 02/28/2022 until they were returned on 02/28/2022. The facility's failure to ensure staff treated residents with dignity and respect and failure to ensure a resident's right to retain and use personal belongings has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, or death to residents. Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 03/20/2022 and was determined to exist on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2022-03-31 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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/procedure, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect for one (1) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Resident #6). The facility willfully deprived Resident #6 of his/her personal belongings, from 02/24/2022 to 02/28/2022. These belongings were necessary to attain or maintain his/her mental and psychosocial well-being necessary to avoid mental anguish or emotional distress. Resident #6 stated he/she felt this behavior was abuse, as well as staff, who described this behavior as abusive. Staff were aware Resident #6 was upset and cried during this time. However, the resident's belongings were not returned until 02/28/2022. The facility's failure to provide Resident #6 with his/her personal belongings and failure to follow their policy to ensure all residents were free from abuse and neglect has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, or death to residents. Immediate Jeopardy was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-03-31 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, review of job descriptions, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse and neglect for one (1) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Resident #6), whose personal belongings were removed from his/her room for four (4) days causing him/her psychosocial harm. Resident #6 cried and was upset from Thursday to Monday. Staff wasn't able to provide the necessary care for the resident. The resident asked for his/her belongings to be given back. However, no one would give him/her his/her belongings. Although the resident felt this behavior was abusive and staff thought it was abuse, no one reported this as an allegation of abuse. The facility's failure to ensure staff followed the facility's policy for reporting abuse, has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, or death to residents. Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 03/20/2022 and was determined to exist on 02/07/2022, in the areas of 42 CFR 483.10…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2022-03-31 · 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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident's rights, to meet the resident's highest practicable quality of life, specifically nursing and psychosocial needs, that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for two (2) of fifty-three (53) sampled residents (Residents #6 and #50). The facility deprived Resident #6 and Resident #50 of goods or services that were necessary to attain or maintain his/her highest level of practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of Resident #6's care plan, dated 11/23/2021, revealed a focus of psychosocial wellbeing risk related to a new environment. Goals included the resident would have care needs met daily as measured by the resident being clean, well-groomed, and odor free. Interventions included staff assistance with dressing, hygiene, and oral and denture care daily and, as needed.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-06-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and control the development and transmission of communicable diseases for 7 of 40 sampled residents (Resident (R) 16, R32, R40, R50, R78, R82, and R88). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention Manual for Long Term Care, undated, revealed gowns should be worn when there is potential for soiling clothing with blood/body fluids; the type of personal protective equipment [PPE] should be appropriate for the procedure being performed and the type of exposure anticipated. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 07/01/2024, revealed the facility will ensure medications are administered in accordance with manufacturers' specifications and good nursing principles and practices. Further review revealed gloves should be applied before administration of topical, ophthalmic, otic, parenteral, enteral, rectal, and vaginal medications; and hands are washed with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of residents' advance directive information for 2 of 12 sampled residents, Resident (R) 22 and R53. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Advance Directives, dated 08/08/2024, revealed the resident has the right to formulate an advance directive defined as a written instruction such as a living will, or durable power of attorney for healthcare recognized under State law (whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of the State), relating to the provision of health care when the individual is incapacitated. Further review revealed during the admission process the facility will attempt to determine whether the resident has an advance directive and, if not, determine whether the resident wishes to formulate an advance directive. 1. Review of R22's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/10/2013 with diagnoses to include dementia, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Review of R22's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference…
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 before2025-05-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to protect 1 of 11 sampled residents from physical abuse involving a resident to resident altercation, Resident (R) 21. On 01/13/2024 at 1:20 PM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 7 witnessed R72 smack R21 in the face for taking R72's teddy bear away from her. Per review of the progress notes, R21 stated she thought her nose had been broken after the incident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Protection, Prevention, and Reporting Policy, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the facility will conduct screenings and trainings to prevent and identify instances of abuse. Further review of the policy revealed that all reports of abuse will be investigated, ensuring the protection of victims and the reporting of all instances of abuse. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Policy, dated of 08/13/2024, revealed all residents have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, and in a manner and environment that promotes maintenance or…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 4 sampled residents, Resident (R) 51. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the person who prepares the dose for administration is the person who administers the dose and the individual who administers the medication dose records the administration on the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) which would show that the medication has been given. Review of the facility's policy titled, Preparation and General Guidelines; IIA7: Controlled Substances, dated 11/2021, revealed accurate accountability of the inventory of all controlled drugs is maintained at all times. When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters the following information on the accountability record and the MAR: date and time of administration; amount administered; remaining quantity; initials of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan consistent with the resident's rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a the resident's medical and nursing needs for 1 of 1 sampled residents, Resident (R) 47. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Policy, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) is based on a thorough assessment that includes but is not limited to, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments; and is designed to incorporate identified problem areas, incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems, and be revised as necessary with changes. Further review revealed the CCP will be person-centered for each resident. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the facility will ensure medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with manufacturers'…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 The facility failed to review and revise the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for 1 of 34 sampled residents, Resident (R) 43. Review of R43's CCP revealed the facility failed to revise the care plan for placing his catheter bag on the floor, despite an interview with the resident stating that he liked to do so and observations of the catheter bag lying on the floor. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Policy, dated 08/04/2024, revealed that the facility would develop and implement a person-centered care plan for each resident that is designed to incorporate identified problem areas, risk factors associated with the identified problems and should be revised as necessary with changes. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Policy, dated 08/13/2024, revealed that residents have the right to see their care plan and to participate in decisions and care planning. Review of the facility's policy titled, Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) Prevention, not…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 of any significant medication errors for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident (R) 47. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 08/04/2024, revealed the facility will ensure medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, good nursing principles and practices, and only by persons legally authorized to do so. Further review revealed long-acting, extended release or enteric-coated dosage forms should generally not be crushed; an alternative should be sought. Observation on 05/06/2025 at 8:09 AM revealed Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 2 crushed all medications for R47 except for an esomeprazole (used to reduce stomach acid production) capsule. KMA2 placed the crushed medications in chocolate pudding, opened the capsule and emptied it into chocolate pudding, and administered all the medications to R47. Review of R47's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/02/2020…
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 before2025-05-08 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 34 sampled residents, R36, R43 and R390. Observations revealed R390 and R36 did not have the proper signage or proper precautions in place. Observations revealed R43's catheter was observed on the floor on multiple observations. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Prevention Program Overview, no date given, revealed the goals of the program are to decrease risk of infection, implement appropriate control measures, and to identify and correct problems relating to infection prevention practices. Added review of goals revealed facility is to maintain compliance with state and federal regulations related to infection prevention. Continued…
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 · F2022-03-31 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
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, and the website it was determined the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient dietary staff with necessary skill sets to safely and adequately prepare and serve meals three (3) times a day. This lack of sufficient dietary staff had the potential to affect eighty-two (82) of eighty-four (84) current residents. Two (2) residents received tube feedings. The findings include: Interview and observations of [NAME] #1 taking food temperatures, on 03/17/2022 at 5:11 PM, during the supper meal service, revealed he was resting the thermometer on the bottom of the steam table pan. [NAME] #1 stated he did not know how to take food temperatures nor, did he know how to calibrate a thermometer. Observations of various meal preparation/service times, primarily evening shift, during 03/08/2022 through 03/20/2022, revealed staffing was a cook and a dietary aide (DA) to cook, plate, and deliver meal carts for eighty-two (82) residents. Review of the Dietary Work Schedules,…
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 · F2022-03-31 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of the Dietary Manager's (DM) job description, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to distribute food that was palatable. Interviews with residents and staff revealed meals served on 03/09/2022 and 03/10/2022, were not palatable. On 03/09/2022, residents received overcooked and tough breaded pork tenderloin. On 03/10/2022, residents received steak fries that were white in color and did not appear to have been cooked. Interviews from numerous residents/family members and staff revealed, on 03/13/2022, at the dinner meal, residents were served cold, undercooked chicken nuggets and waffle fries, with the appearance of not being cooked. Eighty-two (82) of the eighty-four (84) current residents had the potential to be affected by the meals. Two (2) residents received tube feedings. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Production and Food Safety 3-39, dated 02/2019, found in the Dietary Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 3, revealed the cook was responsible to taste all food…
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 · F2022-03-31 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespreadEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to routinely offer snacks for all residents, excluding those that received tube feedings and received no snacks. In addition, meal service was delayed on 03/08/2022, 03/11/2022, and 03/13/2022. These deficient practices affected eighty-two (82) of eighty-four (84) current residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Process for Snacks in the Hydration Rooms, undated, revealed the Dietary Manager (DM) or designee checked the hydration rooms twice daily, Monday through Friday. This included checks for the number of snacks available, the dates on snacks and disposing of any that were out of date, and to restock, as needed. Also, the policy stated that on the Friday evening checks, the hydration rooms were stocked to provide snacks throughout the weekend. In addition, the policy stated the meal schedule was breakfast at 7:00 AM, lunch at 12:00 PM, and supper at 5:00 PM. State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor, on 03/10/2022 at 4:20 PM, requested a snack…
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 · E2022-03-31 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure menus were posted and/or followed as posted. Review of the menus posted for 03/14/2022, lunch and dinner, and 03/17/2022, dinner only, did not match the foods observed to be served to the residents. This deficiency affected eighty-two (82) of eighty-four (84) current residents; two (2) residents were receiving tube feedings and did not receive meal trays. The findings include: The facility did not provide a policy for following menus. Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes, dated 01/14/2022, revealed the Administrator's signature was not dated. Further review revealed residents voiced concerns related to mealtimes and menus not being posted. The resolution listed was to start posting mealtimes and menus. The minutes also stated the current menu would be changing from the Fall/Winter menu to the Spring/Summer Menu very soon. 1. Review of the lunch meal menu posted, for 03/14/2022, revealed the foods to be served included: pot roast, mashed potatoes, mixed vegetables, choice…
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 BLUEGRASS HEALTH KY — 15 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 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KENNEDY KY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 14% | since 01/01/2023 |
| KY EQUITY PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 21% | since 01/01/2023 |
| GRINSPAN, ELI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 15% | since 01/01/2023 |
| ZUPNICK, MIRIAM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| GREYSTONE SERVICING COMPANY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 08/28/2019 |
| RIDGEWAY NRF REALTY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| FISCHEL, MAYER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| VALLEY STREAM OPERATOR I LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/17/2025 |
| VIARS, CHRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/26/2016 |
| KY 90 EQUITIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| ZF REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BERKOWITZ, CHESKEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BUTROS, REZKALLA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/14/2019 |
| LANDA, BENJAMIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| LEIFER, JOEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| TATMAN, BRITTANY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/10/2025 |
| ZUPNICK, JOEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 78% 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 $996K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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.
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 185254. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-05, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.