No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Parkview Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

544 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, KY 42003 · For profit - Corporation · 228 certified beds · (270) 443-6543 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (270) 443-6543 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
$5,519 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
Worth asking about
  • the CMS record shows $5,519 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-20)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 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

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
drbbowers<0.1 mi
632 Lone Oak Rd · (270) 415-0245 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
538 Lone Oak Rd · (270) 443-8855 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Kroger0.1 mi
501 Lone Oak Rd · (270) 443-8806 · Call to confirm hours
Park
114 Forest Cir · (270) 444-8508 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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
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 improved from 3 to 4 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.7%13.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.8%6.6%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.0%1.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms9.5%17.7%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.1%3.9%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.4%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication41.1%29.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.9%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.2%4.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control26.0%19.0%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table8.8%16.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine46.2%83.5%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.3%24.2%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.5%13.7%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.081.941.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.082.141.80worse

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.

55.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 428 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

55.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
80.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.63U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.35hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 80.6% 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 36 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 0.63 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF55.7%CMS range 50.8–60.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.6%CMS range 8.6–13.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge80.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge80.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge69.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting98.4%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.5%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization9.6%CMS range 6.8–12.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.991.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.66
RN hours/ resident / day
0.93
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.06
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.65
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.20
RN hoursweekends
37.4%
Total nursing turnover
37.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 228 beds and averages 151.3 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 77 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.85 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-02)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-20)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    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 policy, it was determined that the facility failed to refer residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR). Resident (R) 11 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 10/08/2023, a new diagnosis of schizophrenia was added, however, the facility did not initiate a new level I PASARR. This affected one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for PASARR. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, reviewed on 09/26/2025, revealed that the facility would ensure that potential admissions would be screened for possible serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions. The initial pre-screening was referred to as PASARR level I and is completed prior to admission to a nursing facility. A negative level I screen permits admission to proceed and ends 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for three out of three residents, Resident (R) R5, R6 and R7. The findings include: Observation of (R) 5 on 03/30/2026 at 4:48 PM revealed a catheter bag anchored to the bedside, and the end of the catheter tubing was in the trash can. Observation on 03/31/2026 at 10:25 AM and 3:48 PM revealed that the catheter tubing remained in the trash can. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident (R) 5 to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia, complete, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, unspecified. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent / decrease a resident's limitation in Range of Motion (ROM) were in place for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents, R6 and R7. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Splints and Braces-Upper Extremity, reviewed 09/19/2025 stated the facility would provide splints and braces to the upper extremities in accordance with professional standards of practice, as outlined by [NAME]. The use of a supportive and protective device designed for a patient's upper extremity, such as a sling, brace, or splint, helped provide support, facilitate functional use, reduce pain, maintain alignment, correct deformities, or provide protection for a healing injury. For use in immobilizing an acute injury, a splint or brace helped prevent further soft-tissue, nerve, and vascular damage while allowing for swelling and helping to reduce pain during healing.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility policy it was determined that the facility failed to provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the storage of controlled drugs.The findings include: Observation on 03/30/2026 at 12:00 PM of the medication room on Wing 7 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN4) revealed the medication refrigerator was not locked. There were five bottles of Lorazepam 2 milligram per milliliter (30 ml) oral concentrate, one bottle with 2 ml, and one bottle with 6.75 ml in the refrigerator, unsecured. They were not in a separate lock box nor affixed to the inside of the refrigerator. Review of the facility policy, titled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals, last revised 08/01/2024, revealed the facility, under controlled substances storage, would store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, including the storage of Schedule II - V medications in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments, permitting only authorized personnel to have access. The facility would ensure all controlled…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of one sampled residents. Observations on 03/30/2026 and 03/31/2026 revealed R5's open-ended catheter tubing was loosely hanging in the trash receptacle. The findings include: Observation on 03/30/2026 at 4:48 PM revealed a catheter bag anchored to the bedside, and the end of the catheter tubing was in the trash can. Observation on 03/31/2026 at 10:25 AM and 3:48 PM revealed that the catheter tubing remained in the trash can. Review of facility policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program and Plan, revised on 06/02/2025, revealed, the facility had an ongoing infection prevention and control program to prevent, recognize, and control the onset 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-03-20 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure 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, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assure the nutritive value of food was not compromised and destroyed because of prolonged holding on a steam table. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 163 of the facility's 163 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. Observation on 03/17/2025 at 3:20 PM, revealed macaroni and cheese and greens were placed on the steam table an hour and ten minutes prior to the evening meal being served. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Temperature Control, revised 06/28/2024, revealed the food temperatures were to be maintained during mealtimes to ensure residents received safe food served at acceptable temperatures. Continued review revealed food was to be prepared by methods that conserved the nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. Review of the facility policy titled, Cleaning Schedule, reviewed on 04/30/2024, revealed food was not to be placed on the steam table more than 30 minutes before a meal service began. Observation on 03/17/2025 at 3:20 PM, during…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection were followed for 1 of 33 sampled residents, (Resident (R)139); and for all residents residing on the 900 hall/unit who used ice from the ice cooler. 1. Observation on 03/19/2025 revealed staff failed to use appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when providing care for R139 who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). 2. Observation on 03/18/2025 revealed staff, after overfilling a resident's used cup with ice, and then to proceed to pour the excess ice, off the top of the cup, back into the clean cooler of ice. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revised 06/03/2024, revealed the facility should use Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during high-contact resident care activities. Per review, the high-contact resident care activities included: wound and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident was not known to be…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to promote residents' personal privacy for 1 of 5 residents sampled for wound care, out of the total sampled residents of 33, (Resident (R)87). During observation of wound care for R87 on 03/20/2025, the wound care nurse failed to close the window blind, exposing R87 to view by anyone outside within sight of the resident's window. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, reviewed 11/19/2024, revealed the resident had a right to be treated with respect and dignity. Review of the admission Record for R87 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/28/2022, with diagnoses to include: paraplegia, limitation of activities due to disability, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Record review revealed R87 had wounds requiring treatment to her buttock and foot. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with a Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/01/2025, revealed the facility assessed R87 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 7 residents sampled during medication pass out of the total sample of 33, (Resident (R)4). Observation revealed medication observed under R4's bed, lying on her bedside table, and lying in her hand while she was lying on her bed with eyes closed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Administration of Medications, reviewed 09/16/2024, revealed the facility was to ensure medications were administered safely and appropriately. Review revealed the definition of a medication error was noted as the observed or identified preparation or administration of medications or biologicals which were not in accordance with . 3. Accepted professional standards and principles which applied to professionals providing services. Per review , the facility procedure included medication administration was the responsibility of individuals, who through certification and licensure, were authorized 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0559 — isolated
    Honor 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

    Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents responsible party received a written notice, including the reason for the change, before the resident's room or roommate in the facility was changed for one of six (6) sampled residents (Resident #1). The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Room Relocation, dated 08/09/2023, revealed the Social Services staff would provide an explanation in writing to the resident, family, and/or resident representative of why the move was required. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/04/2019 with diagnoses to include: Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, Dysphagia following cerebral infarction, and Aphasia following cerebral infarction. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 02/12/2024, revealed the resident was assessed to have a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of eleven (11) out 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 interview, record review and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan which included measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial well-being for one (1) of (3) three sampled residents (Resident #1). Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the resident had an behaviors of cursing, yelling, and wandering into other resident's rooms, however, there was no behavior care plan initiated. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 08/23/2023, revealed the facility would ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, was involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his/her care. The policy…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-10 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services 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 observation, interview, medical record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for one (1) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents. Resident #163 was receiving dialysis three (3) times per week. Interventions implemented related to receiving dialysis included communication with the dialysis center. However, there was no documented evidence that the facility coordinated care with the dialysis center for ten (10) of fifteen (15) treatments received at the dialysis center. The findings include: Review of the facility's care plan policy, revised 07/23/2009, revealed the Care Plan should address, to the extent possible, interventions for preventing avoidable declines in functioning or functional levels, resident-specific interventions, and standards of current professional practice. Review of Resident #163's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/28/2018, with diagnoses…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$5,519 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $5,519 — penalty dated 2025-03-20

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.5+0.5 vs chain
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Garden Terrace At Overland ParkOverland Park, KS 1 of 5Hammond-Whiting Care CenterWhiting, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of AndoverAndover, KS 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Cape GirardeauCape Girardeau, MO 1 of 5Life Care Center Of GrayGray, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of HixsonHixson, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Mount VernonMount Vernon, WA 1 of 5Life Care Center Of RenoReno, NV 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Sierra VistaSierra Vista, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center Of The WillowsValparaiso, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of TucsonTucson, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center of Coeur d'AleneCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Life Care Center of ElkhornElkhorn, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of Hilton HeadHilton Head Island, SC 1 of 5Life Care Center of OmahaOmaha, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of PlainwellPlainwell, MI 1 of 5Life Care Ctr Of LawrencevilleLawrenceville, GA 1 of 5Rensselaer Care CenterRensselaer, IN 2 of 5Canon Lodge Care CenterCanon City, CO 2 of 5Darcy Hall Of Life CareWest Palm Beach, FL 2 of 5Desert Cove Nursing CenterChandler, AZ 2 of 5Evergreen Nursing HomeAlamosa, CO 2 of 5Garden Terrace Healthcare Center of HoustonHouston, TX 2 of 5Hallmark ManorFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Lane House, TheCrawfordsville, IN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Altamonte SpringsAltamonte Springs, FL 2 of 5Life Care Center Of AthensAthens, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BridgetonBridgeton, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BrookfieldBrookfield, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ClevelandCleveland, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ColumbiaColumbia, SC 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Coos BayCoos Bay, OR 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Federal WayFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of GrandviewGrandview, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of KirklandKirkland, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Merrimack ValleyBillerica, MA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Morgan CountyWartburg, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of PuyallupPuyallup, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Red BankChattanooga, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of South Las VegasLas Vegas, NV

Showing 40 of 193; 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
CRHC LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/01/2017
FREEMAN, AMBERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/18/2024
LINDSEY, GREGORYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/04/2025
SOLOMON, JENNIFERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/01/2019
CROSS, CINDYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/21/1994
FLETCHER, TODDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/02/2020
HENRY, TERRYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/16/1999
LAY, LISAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/09/2018
SWANKER, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2011
THURMOND, JOANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/22/2000
ZIEGLER, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/16/1999
CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES HEALTH CARE FUND I LPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/1990
HCF INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERESTsince 08/23/1985
LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/1990
NELSON, TROYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/04/2025
PRESTON, AUBREYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/27/2024
PRESTON, FORRESTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/23/1995
FUND I INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIPOrganizationLIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/23/1995

CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

5 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.

$19.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.6M
Related-party expense19% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 61%Medicare 13%Other / private 26%

This home reported $3.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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

$283per resident / day
operating cost
$8,600per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$296per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Kentucky
$9,718/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,254/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,528/mo
Assisted living

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 185171. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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.

What to do next