Cal Turner Rehab and Specialty Care
456 Burnley Road, Scottsville, KY 42164 · Non profit - Other · 110 certified beds · (270) 622-2800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $5,519 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-13)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.3% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.3% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.1% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.0% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.9% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.6% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.9% | 24.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.68 | 1.94 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.70 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
28.9% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 24.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 37 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 28.9%CMS range 20.4–42.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.4–14.9 | 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 | 24.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 21.6% | 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 | 24.3% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.0% | 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 | 3.9% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 4.2–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 110 beds and averages 104.7 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.25 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2020-02-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, facility investigation and policy review, and hospital record review, it was determined the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Care Plan for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #14). Resident #14 was care planned for two (2) assist with transfers. On 02/03/2020, a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) attempted to transfer the resident from the toilet to resident's wheel chair without the assistance of another staff, which resulted in the resident falling. Because of the fall, the resident sustained a Right Femoral Neck Fracture that required surgery (Right Anterior total hip replacement). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled. Person-Centered Care Plans, last revised January 2020, revealed the objective is to provide consistent, continuous care; comprehensive person-centered care, and care that is interdisciplinary. Staff is expected to follow the Plan of Care for each resident. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident…
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.
- Actual harm · G2020-02-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, facility policy and investigation review, and hospital record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents were provided for one (1) of three (3) residents with falls in the selected sample of twenty-two (22) residents (Resident #14). The facility assessed and care planned Resident #14 required two (2) staff assist with transfer. In addition, the facility's protocol was for staff to use gait belt during transfers. However, on 02/03/2020, one (1) Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) attempted to transfer the resident off the toilet into the resident's wheel chair without assistance, which resulted in a fall. Resident #14's fall resulted in a Right Femoral Neck Fracture, which required a right anterior total hip replacement. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Fall Risk Assessment and Intervention last revised August 2018, revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure that each resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were current for use and/or labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, including the expiration date when applicable. Insulin was opened but not labeled or dated and expired medication was available for use. This failure involved one of two medication carts reviewed (out of a total of four carts), as well as one medication storage room reviewed (out of a total of two medication storage rooms), and affected two (Resident (R) 35 and R8) residents, The findings include: 1. Review of a facility policy titled, Formulary Management, reviewed 04/2014, revealed medications acquired from a wholesaler, another pharmacy, or manufacturer would be stored in the pharmacy according to manufacturer guidelines. Review of a facility policy titled, Administration of Medication, revised 09/2019, revealed all multi-dose vials/pens should be marked with 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect, dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents, (Resident #25 and #55). Staff failed to respond to Resident #55's call light timely when the resident needed to use the bedpan and failed to ensure Resident #25's face and shirt were clean after eating meals and receiving medications. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Rights and Responsibilities of Residents, last revised April 2017, revealed to treat each resident with consideration, respect and full recognition of his dignity, and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his/her personal needs. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #55 on 09/16/19 with diagnoses, which included Peripheral Vascular Disease, Acquired Absence of Left and Right Leg below 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 one (1) of three (3) residents with tube feedings, in the selected sample of twenty-two (22) residents, received care in accordance with professional standards of practice (Resident #61). Licensed staff failed to ensure Resident #61's tube feeding container of Vital 1.2 was labeled with the date and time the feeding was hung. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Tube Feeding - Continuous and intermittent, dated January 2019, revealed .the feeding container and tubing should be changed every eight (8) hours unless ordered otherwise. Ready to hang bags can hang up to forty-eight hours however; spike sets should be changed every twenty-four (24) hours. Label the pump set with the date and time of hanging. Record review revealed the facility re-admitted Resident #61 on 12/24/19 with diagnoses which included Partial Intestinal Obstruction, Unspecified as to Cause,…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident receives pressure ulcer care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent infection for one (1) of four (4) resident with pressure ulcers, in the selected sample of twenty-two (22) residents (Resident #85). Licensed staff failed to provide pressure ulcer care for Resident #85 according to professional standards of practice, which resulted in the nurse contaminating the wound. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Routine Skin Care and Pressure Ulcer Management, last revised on September 2019 revealed the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers and that the nurse should initiate appropriate skin care plan for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Review of the facility policy, Infection Prevention last revised February 2020 revealed, the facility will…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medical records, were complete and accurately documented for one (1) unsampled resident not in the selected sampled of twenty-two (22) residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to ensure medical record were complete for Resident #1 related to the placement, assessments, and removal of heparin (hep) lock. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Documentation, last revised August 2018, revealed the purpose was to provide a complete and accurate record that reflects observations regarding resident status, nursing care provided to the resident, the effectiveness of nursing interventions, medical treatment ordered, and discharge preparation activities and to specify the individuals authorized to document in the medical record to include routine procedures and observations. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 10/24/19 with diagnoses, which included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Right Dominant Side.…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Residents #85 and #48) A Licensed Nurse failed to ensure standard precautions were followed while performing wound care for Resident #85. In addition, staff failed to ensure Resident #48's catheter bag was kept off the floor. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Infection Prevention last revised February 2020 revealed, the facility will ensure that Standard Precautions shall be practiced to reduce the risk of transmission of communicable and infectious diseases in the long term care setting. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #85 on 06/04/2019 with diagnoses which included Pressure Ulcer of Right Heel, unstageable, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, unstageable, 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.
- No harm found · C2025-03-13 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to post survey results in a place readily accessible, where individuals wishing to examine survey results did not have to ask to see them. The facility's failure affected 10 residents who attended the resident council meeting (Resident (R)2, R21, R25, R37, R39, R40, R50, R62, R63, R85) and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility, as well as family/representatives, and visitors of the facility who had the right to review the facility's survey history. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Rights and Responsibilities of Residents, reviewed 06/2024, revealed each resident and resident representative had the right to have access to all inspection reports at the facility. A meeting was conducted on 03/12/2025 at 1:03 PM, with residents who regularly attend Resident Council meetings. During the meeting, interview with the residents who were present (R2, R21, R25, R37, R39, R40, R50, R62, R63, and R85) revealed they did not know where the survey book…
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
$5,519 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $5,519 — penalty dated 2025-03-13
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMMONWEALTH HEALTH CORPORATION, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/1996 |
| BORDERS, WILLIAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/14/2023 |
| GRAY, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/19/2020 |
| LANG, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| LAWLESS, MICHELE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/19/2020 |
| SMITH, CONNIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/18/1998 |
| STONE, WADE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/14/2012 |
| WOOD, KATRINA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/17/2023 |
| WOODWARD, JACQUELINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2013 |
| BISHOP, CATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2000 |
| BLACKBURN, DONNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2004 |
| COOK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/1982 |
| JACKSON, ELI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2000 |
| JOHNSON, JANET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2005 |
| KAZIMUDDIN, MOHAMMED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| LOVING, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| MOSS, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| NATCHER, JOE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/1992 |
| POPE-TARRENCE, JACKIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/01/2018 |
| THOMSON, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 185325. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-15, 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.