Stonecreek Health and Rehabilitation
4747 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, KY 42001 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (270) 444-9661 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 42% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.5% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.0% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.2% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.1% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.8% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.9% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.7% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 13.7% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
40.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 70% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 40.7%CMS range 33.8–46.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.4%CMS range 10.3–18.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 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 | 36.7% | 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 | 79.3% | 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 | 91.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 85.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 5.2% | 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 | 5.2% | 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 | 8.0%CMS range 4.9–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 90 beds and averages 85.5 residents a day — about 95% 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean homelike environment for 1 of 26 sampled residents, (Resident (R)21).The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Accidents and Supervision, last reviewed/revised 06/01/2025, revealed the resident environment was to remain as free of accident hazards as was possible. Per review, Environment referred to any environment or area in the facility that was frequented by or accessible to residents, including (but not limited to) the residents' rooms and bathrooms. Continued policy review revealed Hazards referred to elements of the resident environment that had the potential to cause injury or illness. Further review revealed Risk referred to any external factor, facility characteristic (e.g., staffing or physical environment) or characteristic of an individual resident that influenced the likelihood of an accident. In interview on 12/03/2025 at 3:02 PM, R21 stated his commode…
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 before2025-12-06 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment accurately reflected the resident's current status for 1 of 4 residents sampled for MDS Assessments out of the total sample of 26, (Resident (R)91). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident assessment dated [DATE], revealed the purpose of the policy was to assure all residents received an accurate assessment and/or reassessment. Per review, the purpose also include the accurate assessment and/or reassessment was to be reflective of the resident's status at the time of assessment by the staff qualified to assess relevant care areas. Review of the facility's admission Observation assessment dated [DATE], signed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 revealed documentation under the integumentary system section noted R91 to have normal skin color, warm temperature, and skin moisture was dry. Further review revealed under alterations in…
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 before2025-12-06 · 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 facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident (R)91). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, revised on 03/03/2025, revealed it was the policy of the facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Per review, the comprehensive care plan was to describe, at a minimum, the following services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practical, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Continued review revealed resident-specific interventions that reflected the resident's needs and preferences and aligned with the resident's cultural identity were to be provided, as indicated. Further review revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-06 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive person-centered care plan was reviewed and revised for 1 of 26 sampled residents, (Resident (R)21). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, revised on 03/03/2025, revealed it was the policy of the facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Per review, the comprehensive care plan was to describe services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practical, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Continued review revealed the comprehensive care plan was to be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly assessments. Further review revealed the comprehensive care plan was to also include measurable objectives and time frames to meet the residents' needs as identified in the residence comprehensive assessment. In addition, the objectives…
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 · D2025-12-06 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent pressure ulcers for 1 of 4 residents sampled for pressure ulcers out of the total sample of 26 residents (Resident (R)91).The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pressure Injury Prevention and Management dated 06/04/2025, revealed the facility was committed to the prevention of avoidable pressure injuries unless clinically unavoidable. Per review, the facility was also committed to providing treatment and services to heal pressure ulcers, prevent infection, and prevent the development of additional pressure ulcers. Continued review revealed a licensed nurse was to conduct a full body skin assessment on all residents upon admission, readmission, weekly, and after any newly identified pressure injury. Policy review revealed the findings of those assessments were to be documented in the residents' medical…
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 · D2025-12-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than 5 percent (%), which affected 1 of 8 residents sampled during medication observation, (Resident (R)50). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, last reviewed on 06/01/2025, revealed medications were to be administered as ordered by the physician. Further review revealed the Medication Administration Record (MAR) was to be reviewed to identify the medication to be administered. Review of the facility's MAR for R50, dated 12/04/2025, for revealed one hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5 - 325 milligram (mg) tablet (a narcotic medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) ordered for administration at 4:00 PM. Continued review revealed saccharomyces boulardiii 250 mg (a probiotic yeast used to support gut health), one capsule ordered for administration between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM. Observation on 12/04/2025 at 8:30 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 noting the 4:00 PM dose of R50's hydrocodone-acetaminophen had not been administered while the LPN…
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 before2025-12-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 4 of 4 residents sampled for infection control out of the total sample of 26 residents, (Residents (R)4, R91, R93, and R95). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Transmission-Based Precautions revised 05/21/2025, revealed it was the facility's policy to take appropriate action to prevent the transmission of infectious agents, based on the agents' modes of transmission. Per policy review, healthcare personnel caring for residents on Contact Precautions were to wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that might involve contact with the resident or potentially contaminated areas in the resident's environment. Continued review revealed staff must don personal protective equipment (PPE) upon entry and discard the PPE before exiting the resident's room for residents in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, and review of the FDA Food Code 2022 the facility failed to thaw, store, label and date food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation revealed meat thawing in sinks, meat on a tray out at room temperature (temp). Additionally, observation revealed expired and/or outdated food in the walk in cooler. The findings include: 1. A policy on thawing of frozen foods was requested from the Dietary Manager on 07/31/2024; however, such policy was not received. Review of the FDA Food Code 2022 Chapter 3. Food, Chapter 3-3-501.13 Thawing, revealed the time/temperature control for safety was that food should be thawed (A) Under refrigeration that maintains the FOOD temperature at 5oC (41oF) or less Pf; or (B) Completely submerged under running water . Observation on 07/30/2024 at 11:14 AM, during the initial kitchen tour, revealed in one of the sinks of the three compartment sinks were three thawing packaged whole pork loins. Continued observation revealed in another sink area a large roll of ground…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure garbage was stored appropriately and covered, away from food preparation (prep) areas in the kitchen. Observation revealed a large, uncovered trash receptacle almost full of trash, which was stored approximately four steps away from the food prep area. The findings include: During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 07/30/2024 at 11:25 AM, she stated she expected the staff to keep the trash bins covered and away from the food prep area. Observation on 07/30/2024 at 11:14 AM, revealed a large, uncovered trash receptacle ¾ full of trash stored approximately four steps away from the food prep area in the kitchen. In an interview with the [NAME] on 08/01/2024 at 3:18 PM, she stated trash bins should always be covered. She further stated the trash bins should not have been stored that close to the food prep area. In an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 07/30/2024 at 11:25 AM, she stated the trash bins should have been stored in a corner area of the kitchen and away from the food prep area. She further stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · 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 policy, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan which included timeframes and measurable results to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment for three residents, (R)7, R48 and R14 out of 25 total of sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans dated 08/30/2022 and reviewed/revised on 02/2024, revealed it was the policy of the facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, to meet a resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Continued review revealed the comprehensive care plan was to include measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Further review revealed the objectives were to be utilized to monitor the resident's progress, and alternative…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to enter wound treatment orders upon receipt of the orders for two of 25 sampled residents (R)237 and R99. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Clean Dressing Change dated 03/12/2024, revealed It is the policy of this facility to provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and/or cross-contamination. Further review revealed Physician's orders were to specify the type of dressing and frequency of changes. 1. Review of R237's record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/25/2024, from an acute hospital setting, with diagnosis that included a Stage 4 pressure ulcer of the sacrum; other pulmonary embolism (blood clot blocking artery in the lung) with acute cor pulmonale (type of acute right side heart failure), and unspecified severe protein calorie malnutrition. Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure residents' safety and adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents related to smoking in prohibited areas and smoking paraphernalia not being kept in secured locations for three residents (R) 7 and R48) out of twenty-five total sampled residents. R48 was observed smoking in a prohibited area, and R7, R14, and R48 were all observed with smoking paraphernalia lying on their beds and bedside tables and not secured in the bedside lockbox provided as required. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized a mechanical lift (as required) during transfer of R14. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Accidents and Supervision dated 01/02/2020, with a revision date of 02/21/2024, revealed the resident environment was to remain as free of accident hazards as was possible, and they were to receive adequate supervision and assistive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and accepted professional nursing principles and practices for one (1) of two (2) medication rooms audited. Observation on [DATE] at 10:40 AM, of the medication room that serviced rooms on the facility's 100 and 200 halls revealed one (1) open and undated multidose vial of medication and sixty-two (62) wound care products that were beyond the expiration date printed on the label. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration with a revision date of [DATE], revealed medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state .and in accordance with professional standards of practice in order to prevent contamination or infection. Further review revealed the person administering the medication was to, Identify the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain safe and sanitary infection control precautions during wound care for 1 of 3 residents sampled for wound care out of 25 totaled sampled residents, (R)237. The finding include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Prevention and Control Program with a revision date of 02/01/2024, revealed the facility had established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment. Per review, the facility's infection prevention program was also to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Continued review revealed All staff were to assume all residents were potentially infected or colonized with an organism that could be transmitted during the course of providing resident care services. Review of the facility's policy titled, Clean Dressing Change with a revised date of 03/12/2024, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide wound…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for one of three (3) sampled residents (Residents #6). Review of Resident #6's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed staff failed to document that the resident received seventeen doses of Norco (Hydrocodone 5, Acteaminophen 325), from 09/27/2023 through 10/28/2023 on the MAR. However, only two doses of the medication were signed out on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Medication Administration, dated 11/01/2023, revealed that medications were administered by licensed nurses or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice. Continued review revealed that staff would sign the medication administration record (MAR) after the medication was administered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-21 · 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, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately. However, not later than two (2) hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury for one (1) out of five (5) sampled residents, Resident #3. On [DATE], Resident #3 was noted to have bruising and increased pain to his/her right knee. An X-ray of the right knee was performed on [DATE], and review of the X-ray report dated [DATE] at 5:40 AM, revealed Resident #3 had an acute distal femur fracture with malalignment. However, there was no documented evidence the facility reported the injury incident as an injury of unknown origin. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, dated [DATE] and revised 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 Abuse policy, it was determined the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation concerning an injury of unknown origin which was diagnosed as a right distal femur fracture for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents reviewed for potential abuse, neglect and mistreatment, Resident #3. On [DATE], Resident #3 was noted to have bruising to his/her right knee and increased pain in the knee. An X-ray of the right knee was obtained on [DATE] and on [DATE] at 5:40 AM, the X-ray results noted Resident #3 had an acute distal femur fracture with malalignment. However, there was no documented evidence the facility investigated the incident as an injury of unknown origin. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, dated [DATE] and revised on [DATE], revealed it was the facility's policy to provide protection for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-21 · 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 Based on interview, record review, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to review and revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two (2) of fourteen (14) sampled residents reviewed for care plans, Residents #2 and #3. Record review revealed Resident #2's care plan was not revised after he/she exhibited refusal and noncompliance with care. On [DATE] Resident #3 was noted with bruising to the right knee and increased pain. An X-ray of the right knee was performed on [DATE] and resulted on [DATE] at 5:40 AM and indicated Resident #3 had an acute distal femur fracture with malalignment. However, there was no documented evidence that the facility revised the comprehensive care plan when the fracture occurred. Record review revealed Resident #3's care plan was not revised after he/she sustained a right distal femur fracture on [DATE]. Review of the CMS RAI Manual, Section 4.7 The RAI…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview, record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurately documented for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents, Resident #3. On [DATE] Resident #3 was noted with bruising to the right knee and increased pain. An X-ray of the right knee was performed on [DATE] and the results obtained on [DATE] at 5:40 AM, revealed Resident #3 had an acute distal femur fracture with malalignment. However, there was no documented evidence the facility notified the attending Physician until [DATE], nor that Hospice Services was notified. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Charting and Documentation, revised 07/2017, revealed all services provided to the resident, progress towards the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition was to be documented in the resident's medical record. Review revealed medical records was to facilitate communication between the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-09-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This deficient practice could put the 77 residents who receive meals from the facility kitchen at risk for nausea, vomiting, and foodborne illness. Oberservations during intial tour on 08/30/2021: A. Expired food was found in storage, and the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) used expired three (3) compartment sink sanitizer test strips to verify concentration. B. Raw foods were found stored next to ready-to-eat foods in the walk-in refrigerator. C. Kitchen staff failed to label and date leftover items. D. Kitchen staff failed to practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use. E. Food was stored within six (6) inches of the floor and 18 inches of the ceiling. F. Kitchen staff failed to wear a complete hair covering at all times when in the kitchen. G. Dry storage food items were not sealed and were open to air. H. Personal items were found stored on 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 · Ecited before2021-09-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to follow transmission-based precautions for source control and personal protective equipment (PPE) for four (4) of twenty-two (22) residents sampled for infection control (Resident #384, Resident #385, Resident #53 and Resident #21). This deficient practice occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and had the potential to affect all residents by placing them at risk of COVID-19 transmission. The facility failed to ensure hand hygiene and other appropriate measures were taken by staff to prevent the transmission of disease during the medication pass. This affected three (4) (Residents #50, Resident #69, Resident #82 and Resident #76) of five (5) residents observed receiving medication and/or a finger stick blood sugar (FSBS) during the medication pass observation. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled The Transmissions Based Precautions Policy, dated 03/22/2021, revealed in…
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 · D2021-09-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide privacy covers for a urinary catheter drainage bag for two (2) of three (3) residents sampled for catheters (Resident #67 and Resident #79). The findings included: 1. Record review revealed Resident #67 was admitted to the facility 07/08/2021 with a diagnosis of acute kidney failure with tubular necrosis. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #67's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score to be fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #67 had an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #67's care plan, dated 07/08/2021, revealed the resident had a focus of having a catheter, with measurable goals and interventions. Observation on 08/30/2021 at 3:28 PM, revealed Resident #67 was in a reclining chair with his/her catheter hooked to the nightstand next to the chair. Further observation…
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 · D2021-09-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure two (2) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #32 and Resident #39) whose clinical records were reviewed for advanced directives had been provided information about advance directives and/or were offered assistance to formulate an advance directive, if desired. This had the potential to affect eighty-three (83) residents residing in the facility. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Residents' Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives, implemented 03/22/2021, revealed, It was the policy of this facility to support and facilitate a resident's right to request, refuse and/or discontinue medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive. On admission, the facility would determine if the resident had executed an advance directive, and if not, determine whether the resident would like to formulate an advance directive. The facility would provide…
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 before2021-09-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of thirty-eight (38) sampled residents (Resident #7) received an accurate assessment to reflect the resident at the time of the assessment. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately assess Resident #7's dental status. The findings included: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual on Coding Instructions, for section L0200, Oral/Dental Status, revealed that L0200B should be marked if the resident lacks all or parts of teeth, and L0200D should be marked if any cavity or broken tooth was seen. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 05/24/2021 with diagnoses which included atherosclerotic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was ten (10), which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. According…
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 · D2021-09-02 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to include the diagnoses of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder on the pre-admission screening and the resident review (PASRR) Level I. Further review revealed the facility failed to complete a Level II PASRR screening to include new mental health diagnoses of major depressive disorder and Schizophrenia for one (1) of two (2) residents sampled for PASRR level II (Resident #47). The findings included: Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #47 on 08/05/2020 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. Review of the diagnoses listed in the medical record, Resident #47 was diagnosed with major depressive disorder on 08/26/2020 and schizophrenia on 11/15/2020. Review of the 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/29/2021, revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #47 had diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar…
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 before2021-09-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for one (1) of twenty-five (25) sampled residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #2). Specifically, the facility failed to have a care plan for the use and care of Resident #2's urinary catheter. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, revealed the interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and family or legal representative, should develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident through analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #2 on 09/22/2020 with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke) with neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/18/2021, revealed the facility assessed Resident #2's cognition as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-02 · 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 Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to review and revise the care plan after a fall for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents reviewed for falls (Resident #50). Specifically, the facility failed to update Resident #50's care plan with new interventions after falls. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Falls Management Program Guidelines, undated, revealed the resident's care plan should be updated to reflect any new or change in interventions. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #50 on 07/20/2021 and readmitted the resident on 08/12/2021, with diagnoses which included altered mental status, congestive heart failure, epilepsy (seizures), unsteady gait, repeated falls, and wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #50's cognition was moderately impaired, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)…
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 before2021-09-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards of practice for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents reviewed for falls (Resident #50). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing completed neurological (neuro) checks after Resident #50 had an unwitnessed fall on 07/21/2021 and failed to ensure nursing obtained new vital signs with each neurological check completed for Resident #50 after a fall on 08/04/2021. The findings included: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/02/2021 at 10:30 AM, revealed the facility did not have a policy specific to neurological checks. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #50 on 07/20/2021 and readmitted him/her on 08/12/2021, with diagnoses which included altered mental status, congestive heart failure, epilepsy (seizures), unsteady gait, repeated falls, and wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/27/2021,…
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 · D2021-09-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for two (2) residents of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #2 and Resident #55). Specifically, the facility failed to monitor behaviors present for the use of psychotropic medications and offer non-pharmacological interventions for Resident #2; and failed to monitor Resident #55's behaviors when using an antipsychotic medication for depression. This deficient practice could affect the 11 residents who were being administered antipsychotic medications. The findings included: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Drugs, implemented 03/22/2021, revealed the indications for the use of any psychotropic drug should be documented in the medical record and should include the specific condition as diagnosed by the physician, non-pharmacological interventions that have been attempted and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-02 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
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 reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide dental services for one (1) of one (1) sampled resident (Resident #7) who had missing and broken teeth. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Dental Services, dated December 2016, indicated that routine and emergency dental services were available to meet the resident's oral health services in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 05/24/2021 with diagnoses which included atherosclerotic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was ten (10), which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. According to the MDS, there were no issues with the resident's teeth. Review of the admission Nursing Bundle, document, revealed Resident #7 did not have any…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-08-01 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were able to exercise their right to view the results of the facility's State Survey Agency's (SSA's) results and the facility's Plan of Correction. Additionally, the facility failed to post signage related to reviewing the survey results and failed to ensure residents and/or family members were aware of the location of the survey results. Observations on 07/28/2024 through 8/01/2024, revealed the survey results were not readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of the residents. Further observation revealed no signage posted informing residents and visitors where survey results were available for viewing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights dated 03/18/2024, revealed residents had the right to exercise their rights to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal from the facility in exercising…
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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER — 79 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 78 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 78; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLEARVIEW KY SNF HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2021 |
| ZETTER, DAVID | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| BELT, TERESA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/28/2023 |
| VUJANOVIC, MICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 42% 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 185312. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-06, 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.