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

Signature Healthcare of McCreary County Rehab and

58 Cal Hill Spur, Pine Knot, KY 42635 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (606) 354-3155 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
4 immediate-jeopardy citations2 actual-harm citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

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

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

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
20405 N Alberta St · (423) 286-3400 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
4160 S Highway 27 · (606) 354-2222 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
6220 S Highway 1651 · (606) 354-2431 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Yahoo Arch · (606) 376-5323 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
Baptist Rd, Pine Knot, KY 42635, United States

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased13.9%13.8%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.4%6.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%1.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms10.4%17.7%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.2%3.9%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened12.1%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication50.3%29.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.9%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers9.6%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control11.6%19.0%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table10.8%16.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.3%1.7%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.2%83.5%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.7%24.2%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit24.4%13.7%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.281.941.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.192.141.80worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

49.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

49.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
54.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.53U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.22hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.21hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 33 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF49.0%CMS range 35.6–61.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.5%CMS range 7.5–17.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge54.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge63.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge48.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.1%CMS range 4.3–13.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.921.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.87
RN hours/ resident / day
0.84
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.15
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.86
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.43
RN hoursweekends
40.0%
Total nursing turnover
30.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 55.2 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.15 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-14)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2025-05-07)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2020-10-01 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately 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

    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 immediately notify the physician when there was a change in resident condition and/or a need to alter treatment for five (5) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #250, Resident #7, Resident #19, Resident #12, and Resident #42). The facility utilized a protocol for Hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) that required staff to notify the resident's physician for blood glucose levels (blood sugar) less than 70. On 08/06/2020, Resident #250's fingerstick blood glucose level was 66 (ADA recommendation range for someone with diabetes: 80-130 mg/dl) at 5:09 PM and was 59 at 8:15 PM. However, the resident's physician was not notified of the resident's low blood glucose level. On 08/07/2020 at 12:26 PM, the resident's blood glucose level was 56. On 08/07/2020 at 5:09 PM, the resident had a blood glucose level of 46. Again the facility failed to notify Resident #250's physician of the low blood glucose level.…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2020-10-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the care plan for six (6) of eighteen sampled residents (Resident #7, #12, #19, #42, #29 and #250) and failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one (1) residents (Resident #31) out of eighteen (18) sampled residents related to activity preferences. Resident #7, #12, #19, #42, and #250 had care plans related to their diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus with interventions to complete blood glucose monitoring and/or to monitor for signs/symptoms of Hypoglycemia. However, the facility failed to implement the care plans for these residents related to obtaining blood glucose monitoring and monitoring/notifying the physician of low blood glucose levels. On 08/06/2020, Resident #250's fingerstick blood glucose level was 66 (ADA recommendation range for someone with diabetes: 80-130 mg/dl) at 5:09 PM and was 59 at 8:15 PM. However, the resident's physician was not notified 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2020-10-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    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 residents received care and treatment in accordance with accepted standards of practice to treat and prevent adverse events related to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) for five (5) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #250, Resident #7, Resident #19, Resident #12, and Resident #42). Review of the facility's Hypoglycemia Management Algorithm, developed by the American Diabetes Association, revealed if a resident's blood sugar was less than or equal to 70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), staff were required to notify the resident's physician, recheck the resident's blood sugar in 15 minutes, then take other necessary actions based on the resident's blood sugar result. (Hypoglycemia is a condition in which your blood sugar (glucose) level is lower than normal and needs immediate treatment). However, on [DATE] at 5:00 PM and 8:15 PM, Resident #1's blood sugar was less than 70…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2020-10-01 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
    Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff had the knowledge and competency to provide care for residents that require blood glucose monitoring and the implementation of the facility's Hypoglycemia Management Algorithm, for five (5) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #250, Resident #7, Resident #19, Resident #12, and Resident #42). Record review and interviews revealed, on 08/06/2020, Resident #250's fingerstick blood glucose level was 66 (ADA recommendation range for someone with diabetes: 80-130 mg/dl) at 5:09 PM and was 59 at 8:15 PM. On 08/07/2020 at 5:09 PM, the resident had a blood glucose level of 46. Approximately, four (4) hours hours later at 9:19 PM, the resident's blood glucose level was 37. Resident #250 requested to be sent to the hospital, on 08/07/2020 at 9:30 PM. Review of the ambulance documentation for Resident #250, dated 08/07/2020 at 10:51 PM, when they arrived at the facility, the resident was unresponsive with snoring respirations and had a blood…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure its staff implemented and provided care in accordance with the resident's written care plan interventions for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident (R47). R47 sustained a tibial (bone in the lower leg) fracture.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan last reviewed 01/31/2026, revealed the facility would develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. Per review that care plan was to include measurable objective and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Continued policy review revealed the Licensed Nurses and/or Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed and maintained a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identified the highest level of functioning the resident might be expected to attain. Each resident's Comprehensive Care plan was designed to: incorporate identified problem areas and incorporate risk…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2026-05-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided adequate supervision and assistance to prevent injury for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident (R47), which resulted in the resident sustaining a fracture. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Accidents and Incidents last reviewed 01/31/2026, revealed the intent was to ensure the facility provided an environment that was as free from accidents and incidents that were avoidable, the facility investigates these occurrences with applicable documentation and appropriate reporting, as applicable. Review of the facility's policy titled, Notification of Change of Condition last reviewed 01/31/2026, revealed the policy was to ensure appropriate individuals were notified of changes in condition. Additional review revealed the medical provider would provide guidance related to the change in condition. Review of R47's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted her on 07/30/2024, with diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2020-10-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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, record review, and a review of the facility freezer policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions. Observations of the facility walk-in freezer revealed water had leaked from the condenser unit causing ice buildup on containers of frozen strawberries and ice cream cups stored directly under the condenser unit in the freezer. The findings include: A review of the facility freezer policy titled Freezer with a revision date of 08/31/2018, revealed ice buildup should be removed from the freezer at least monthly and the freezer should be frost-free. A review of the weekly cleaning schedule for the freezer revealed that freezer was cleaned weekly and according to the schedule was last cleaned on 09/23/2020. Observations of the Walk in Freezer, on 09/29/2020 at 9:10 AM, (during initial tour of the kitchen) and on 10/01/2020 at 10:50 AM, (during the sanitization tour), revealed condensate water had leaked from the freezer condenser unit and had frozen on containers of strawberries and ice cream. The containers of…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-10-01 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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, the facility failed to revise the care plan for one (2) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #37 and Resident #38). Resident #37 was assessed to be at risk for pressure ulcers and had a physician's order to utilize heal protectors at all times; however, review of the care plan for Resident #37, revealed the care plan did not include interventions to address the use of the heal protectors. Interviews with staff revealed Resident #38 threw cups/pitchers of fluids on the floor and staff did not leave cups/pitchers at the resident's bedside. However, review of the resident's care plan revealed the facility did not revise the care plan to address the behavior, nor did it address how staff were required to ensure the resident met hydration needs. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, last revised on 07/19/2018 revealed it was the goal of the facility to develop a person-centered comprehensive…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-10-01 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to ensure activities were provided based on residents choices and preferences for one (1) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #31). Resident #31's admission assessment noted that it was very important to the resident to go outside for fresh air when the weather was nice; however, observations and interviews revealed that the resident was not given the opportunity to spend time outside. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Activity Program dated last reviewed, and last revised on 07/25/2017, revealed it was the goal of the facility to provide an on-going activities program designed to support residents in their choice of activities, and to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, psychosocial well-being of each resident. Review of the record for Resident #31 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/04/2019, with diagnoses that included Charcot's joint of the right knee, Diabetes Mellitus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-10-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide 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 implement ordered devices to assist in maintaining skin integrity, and to assist in preventing the development of pressure ulcers for one (1) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #37). Resident #37 had a physician's order dated 02/13/2020, for heel protectors to be used at all times. Observations of Resident #37, on 09/30/2020 and 10/01/2020, revealed the heel protectors were not being used as ordered. The findings include: Review of facility's policy, Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Evaluation, revised 01/08/2020, revealed it was the goal of the facility to provide guidelines for evaluation, and identification of residents at risk of developing a pressure ulcer/injury. Further review revealed Once skin inspection is complete, if a new skin alteration is noted, initiate a wound management or non pressure observation in the electronic medical record, and proceed to care planning and interventions individualized…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-10-01 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 fluid intake was monitored related to sufficient fluid intake to maintain hydration and health for two (2) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #29 and Resident #38). Resident #29 and Resident #38 were assessed to be at risk for hydration concerns; however, the facility failed to monitor to ensure residents were meeting their fluid needs. The Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Hydration, last reviewed 06/27/2018 revealed Residents will receive sufficient amounts of fluid to maintain proper hydration. Further review of the policy revealed, Water is made available at mealtime, at bedside, on hydration cart (unless contraindicated). The policy did not indicate how the facility would ensure fluid intake was monitored. 1. Review of the record for Resident #29 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dementia.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-10-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of facility policy and CDC guidelines, it was determined the facility failed to prevent the possible spread of COVID-19. Staff were observed in two (2) resident rooms (Resident #20 and #29) without donning appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), last revised date 08/31/2020, revealed For residents admitted to a facility and whose COVID status is unknown/they have not been tested: Resident/patient placed in droplet precautions for 14 days. Review of the CDC Preparing for COVID-19 in Nursing Homes updated 06/25/2020, revealed as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, a strong infection prevention and control (ICP) program was critical to protect residents and healthcare personnel (HCP). Continued review of CDC guidance revealed the facility should create a plan for managing new admissions and readmissions whose COVID-19 status was unknown to include: placing 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE — 67 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 53.1-1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.9-0.9 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.9-0.9 vs chain
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Danville Centre for Health & RehabilitationDanville, KY 1 of 5Liberty Care & Rehabilitation CenterLiberty, KY 1 of 5Mayfair ManorLexington, KY 1 of 5Signature Health Of Portland Rehab & Wellness CentPortland, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of BremenBremen, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ErinErin, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of MuncieMuncie, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Putnam CountyCookeville, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Terre HauteTerre Haute, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare at Colonial Rehab & WellnessBardstown, KY 1 of 5Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & WellLawrenceburg, KY 1 of 5Sunrise Manor Nursing HomeHodgenville, KY 2 of 5Fountain Circle Care & Rehabilitation CenterWinchester, KY 2 of 5Oakview Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterCalvert City, KY 2 of 5Rockcastle Health & Rehabilitation CenterBrodhead, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ClarksvilleClarksville, TN 2 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Fentress CountyJamestown, TN 2 of 5Signature Healthcare at North Hardin Rehab & WellnRadcliff, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare at Summerfield Rehab & WellneLouisville, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of East LouisvilleLouisville, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of ElizabethtownElizabethtown, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of GeorgetownGeorgetown, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of Roanoke RapidsRoanoke Rapids, NC 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of Spencer CountyTaylorsville, KY 3 of 5Harrodsburg Health & Rehabilitation CenterHarrodsburg, KY 3 of 5Lee County Care & Rehabilitation CenterBeattyville, KY 3 of 5Morgantown Care & Rehabilitation CenterMorgantown, KY 3 of 5Pickett Care And Rehabilitation CenterByrdstown, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ClevelandCleveland, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Monteagle Rehab & WellnessMonteagle, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of NorfolkNorfolk, VA 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Ridgely Rehab&wellness CtrRidgely, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of South Pittsburg Rehab & WeSouth Pittsburg, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare at HillcrestOwensboro, KY 3 of 5Signature Healthcare at Jackson Manor Rehab and WeAnnville, KY 3 of 5Signature Healthcare of Chapel HillChapel Hill, NC 3 of 5Signature Healthcare of KinstonKinston, NC 3 of 5Spring City Care And Rehabilitation CenterSpring City, TN 3 of 5Westmoreland Care & Rehab CtrWestmoreland, TN 4 of 5Bluegrass Care & Rehabilitation CenterLexington, KY

Showing 40 of 66; 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SHC LP HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 12/01/2015
ASBR HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/01/2018
JJLA LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2015
LPSNF LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2015
WHEATEN LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2015
STEIER III, ELMERIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2015
BOYATT, STACEYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/29/2024
HARRISON, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2007

5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-6.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$851K
Related-party expense15% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 73%Medicare 7%Other / private 20%

About 73% 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 $851K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$322per resident / day
operating cost
$9,788per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$304per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in KY

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185211. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next