Pikeville Nursing and Rehab Center, LLC
260 South Mayo Trail, Pikeville, KY 41501 · For profit - Individual · 106 certified beds · (606) 437-7327 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.2% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.8% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.5% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.6% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.7% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.7% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.28 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
33.6% 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 94 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.6% 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 57 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 33.6%CMS range 24.4–41.7 | 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 | 11.8%CMS range 8.7–16.7 | 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 | 31.6% | 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 | 33.3% | 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 | 22.8% | 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 | 74.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 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 | 8.9%CMS range 5.7–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 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 106 beds and averages 92.4 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.06 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 1.84 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.23 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 1 (Resident #100) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 07/01/2025, staff heard Resident #99 yell at Resident #100 and saw Resident #100 holding their right shoulder/arm. Resident #99 reported that they hit Resident #100 on the arm.Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Abuse Protection, indicated, 1. Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, and misappropriation of property. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardians, friends, or other individuals. The policy also revealed, 3. Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. It also includes controlling behavior through corporal punishment. An admission Record revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · 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
Based on record review, interview, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of resident-to-resident physical abuse was reported to the state survey agency (SA) no later than two hours after the allegation was made for 1 (Resident #100) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse.Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Abuse Protection, revealed 6. Comprehensive policies and procedures have been developed to aid our facility in preventing abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of our residents. Our abuse prevention program provides policies and procedures that govern, as a minimum: Reporting/response - The reporting and filing of accurate documents relative to incidents of abuse; reporting to State agencies as required, analyze and implement necessary changes to prevent future occurrences of abuse. The policy did not address timeframes for reporting abuse allegations to state agencies. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #100 on 04/23/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-30 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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, review of the facility's job descriptions, review of the facility's policies, and food establishment inspection reports, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. Observations from 10/27/2024 through 10/30/2024, revealed blunt, metal plumbing protruding from the wall above the toilet in two bathrooms shared by four resident rooms, flooring was uneven in hallways, and resident bathrooms; lighting issues in resident bathrooms and the kitchen, odors permeating from the floor in resident bathrooms, leaking pipes from equipment in the kitchen, chipped and peeling paint/drywall in resident rooms as well as the kitchen, peeling paint on the floor in the kitchen, rust on the door frames in resident rooms, large scuff marks on doors and walls in resident rooms and bathrooms, and a crack in the glass of the main entrance door. These identified issues provided potential impalement…
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 · D2024-10-30 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all medications were securely stored to restrict access to only authorized personnel as evidenced by one (1) of two (2) treatment carts observed unlocked, and unattended by staff on the North Main Hallway. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Storage of Medications revised date December 15, 2018, and the facility's Medication Administration policy revised on April 2019, revealed compartments containing medications were required to be locked when not in use: and trays or carts used to transport such items are not left unattended if unlocked. Observation, on 10/28/2024 at 10:22AM, revealed a treatment cart on the North Main Hallway unlocked and unattended by Registered Nurse (RN)1. RN1 was standing at the medication cart, which was approximately 12-15 feet away from the treatment cart. RN1 stated on 10/28/2024 at 10:25AM, he had been using the treatment cart but had entered a resident's room to administer medications thus leaving the treatment cart…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections related to enhanced barrier precautions for 2 of 3 residents investigated for tube feeding care, Resident (R2 and R7). Additionally, observations revealed four unlabeled bed pans and one unlabeled wash basin lying in the bathroom floors were uncovered. The findings include:. Review of the facility policy, MDRO [multi-drug resistant organism] PPE [personal protective equipment]- Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 01/2024, revealed facility staff were to wear gowns and gloves when performing high-contact care for a resident with an indwelling device, such as a feeding tube. Review of the facility's policy, titled Infection Control, revised 03/2020, revealed the facility was committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for residents and to minimize or prevent the spread of infections. 1a) Review…
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 · E2018-07-19 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable home-like environment. Observation revealed damage to the floors/walls in the facility hallways and shower rooms, a toilet in the shower room that was loose from the floor, a missing/unrepaired shower curtain in the North Hall shower room, and Resident #41's overbed table padding was in disrepair. In addition, the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature in the bathroom in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The findings include: 1. Observation during the initial tour on 07/17/18, revealed a damaged area to the wallboard located at the corner of North A and North B Hallways across from the nurses' station. The damage included a section of the wallboard missing, approximately 3 inches in length by 2 inches in width, close to the baseboard, and two smaller sections of missing wallboard above the larger section. Observation of the North A Hallway revealed a damaged area to the corner of the wall at the end of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2018-07-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation of the three-compartment sink revealed the facility failed to ensure sanitizing solution was added to the water to ensure cooking utensils were sanitized. In addition, the facility failed to ensure two ice scoops stored in a container beside the ice machine were covered. The findings include: 1. Review of the Pots and Pans Sanitizing Solution policy (dated 07/12/16) revealed to ensure pots and pans were sanitized they must be immersed in water with a sanitizing agent for at least two (2) minutes or per manufacturer guidelines. Observation in the kitchen at 10:45 AM on 07/17/18, revealed the third (sanitizing) compartment of the pot/pan sink was filled with water and contained several pots, pans, and other cooking utensils. Facility staff tested the water in the third compartment of the sink for sanitizer solution accuracy. According to the sanitizing test…
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 · E2018-07-19 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. Review of a pest control report dated 06/21/18, revealed action was required to prevent entry of pests; however, the facility failed to make the repairs and flies were observed in the facility. The findings include: Review of the facility's Pest Policy, dated January 2005, revealed the facility maintained an ongoing pest control program to ensure the building was free of insects and rodents. Further review revealed the facility had contracted a company to provide pest control. Observation on 07/17/18 at 12:24 PM, revealed Resident #72 sitting up in bed with a fly swatter lying on the bed. Further observation revealed two flies on the resident's bed. Resident #72 was observed to be hard of hearing and unable to be interviewed. However, Resident #72 stated, I don't like these flies. Observation of Resident #72 on 07/18/18 at 11:38 AM, revealed the resident was lying in bed with his/her eyes closed with a fly swatter on 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 · D2018-07-19 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to notify the responsible party for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents (Residents #48 and #83) when there was a need to transfer the resident. The facility failed to notify Resident #48's responsible party of a physician appointment for treatment of Parkinson's Disease and memory loss. The facility transferred the resident to the appointment unaccompanied by family or staff. The findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/03/13 with diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, Depression and Manic Depression, and Psychotic Disorder. Review of an Order of Appointment of Guardian, dated 11/05/15, revealed two family members, one of which was Family Member #2, were appointed guardianship of Resident #48. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment for Resident #48 dated 06/18/18, revealed the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-07-19 · 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 review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately completed for two (2) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents. The facility documented that Resident #48 had received insulin on a quarterly assessment; however, the resident was not prescribed and did not receive insulin. In addition, the facility documented Resident #73 developed a pressure ulcer on 06/19/18; however, the resident had the pressure ulcer upon admission to the facility and the date the pressure ulcer developed was not known. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Assessment Instrument, Version 3.0, revealed assessments were required to accurately reflect the resident's status. 1. Observation of Resident #48 on 07/17/18 at 12:00 PM, revealed the resident was observed in the dining room, feeding himself/herself. Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed the resident was admitted 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.
- Potential for harm · D2018-07-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement the plan of care for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents (Resident #6). Resident #6's comprehensive care plan required staff to administer pain medication as needed for pain. However, interview with Resident #6 revealed on 07/17/18, the resident had right ear pain and the facility failed to administer pain medication. The findings include: Review of the facility's Care Plans-Comprehensive policy with a revision date of 10/31/17, revealed a person-centered comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs was developed for each resident. The policy stated the care plan would assist the resident to meet their needs, goals, and preferences; and care plan interventions would be implemented after consideration of the resident's problem areas and their causes. According to the policy, 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 · D2018-07-19 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the care plan for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents (Resident #11) was developed by an interdisciplinary team that included the resident's family. Interviews revealed the facility failed to include Resident #11's family in care plan meetings. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled Care Plans - Comprehensive, revealed that the comprehensive care plan was prepared by an interdisciplinary team including at least: the attending physician/nurse practitioner/physician assistant; Registered Nurse; Nurse Aide; member of the food/nutrition services team; the resident; and the resident representative to the extent practicable. Interview with Resident #11's Responsible Party (RP #3) on 07/18/18 at 10:12 AM, revealed he/she had not received notification that a care plan meeting was being held for Resident #11 in approximately one year. The Responsible Party 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 · D2018-07-19 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided consistent with the resident's care plan and the resident's goals and preferences for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents (Resident #6). On 07/17/18, Resident #6 informed staff that he/she was having right ear pain. However, the facility failed to treat the resident's pain with physician ordered Norco (narcotic pain medication). The findings include: Review of the facility's Pain Management policy with a revision date of 02/15/18, revealed each resident would have a monitoring system and a comprehensive person-centered plan of care to address pain management. The policy stated the facility was committed to helping each resident attain or maintain their highest reasonable level of well-being and to prevent or manage pain to the extent possible. According to the policy, if a resident complained of pain, staff were required to assess the pain for 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 · D2018-07-19 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents was free of significant medication errors. On 07/19/18, Resident #83's Midodrine medication (a medication to treat orthostatic hypotension, which is when an individual experiences low blood pressure when sitting or standing) was observed on the floor in the hallway. Interview with the resident revealed he/she did not receive the medication as ordered at 9:00 AM on 07/19/18. At 1:00 PM on 07/19/18, the resident's blood pressure was low (91/50) and staff failed to administer the medication again because the staff believed the medication was used to treat high blood pressure. The findings include: Review of the facility's Medication Administration policy dated May 2016 revealed personnel authorized to administer medications should do so only after they had familiarized themselves with the medication. Observation on 07/19/18 at 10:08 AM,…
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.
- 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 EMERALD HEALTHCARE — 14 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 1.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| EYY PIKEVILLE OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/01/2018 |
| CHAFETZ, YISROEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
| WALDEN, JACOB | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
| EMERALD HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2017 |
| EVOLVE THERAPY SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| LIMESTONE FISCAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| MERCH PAY INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| PRIVATE BANCORP INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/30/2025 |
| SAUL N FRIEDMAN & COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| WELLSKY CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| ZIMMET HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| FLEISCHMANN, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/12/2022 |
| FRANKLIN, BRENDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/30/2020 |
| GOPIN, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| KEATHLEY, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2014 |
| PIERCE, BARBARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/06/2019 |
| ROBERTS, LANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/07/2022 |
| SROCZYNSKI, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2020 |
| TOVAR, JESUS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 39 rows in the source record cover these 19 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.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 185094. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-30, 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.