Cumberland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
200 Norfleet Drive, Somerset, KY 42501 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 93 certified beds · (606) 678-5104 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.3% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.6% | 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 | 1.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.8% | 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 | 1.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 52.0% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 35.2% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 83.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.5% | 24.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.8% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 2.14 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
39.0% 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 69 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 12.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 25 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 39.0%CMS range 29.2–50.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.2–15.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 12.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 4.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.9%CMS range 4.7–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 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 93 beds and averages 89.1 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.03 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 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2021-07-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #283) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and physician orders. The facility admitted Resident #283 to the facility with diagnoses including Diabetes and Hypertension. However, the facility failed to monitor the resident for signs/symptoms of hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia, and failed to monitor the resident's blood sugar level while the resident resided in facility. In addition, the facility failed to obtain the resident's heart rate/blood pressure as ordered by the physician on 06/18/2021, and per the facility's COVID-19 protocol. On 06/18/2021, nursing staff assessed Resident #283 to be ashy in color and cool/clammy to touch, although staff contacted the physician and sent the resident to the hospital, staff failed to obtain the resident's glucose level. On 06/27/2021, Resident #283 would not talk to staff and the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure they reported allegations of abuse to law enforcement and to the state survey agency within two hours, which affected 1 (Resident 94) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice, last reviewed 03/2026, revealed, the Purpose was To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and to ensure reporting and investigating of alleged violations (to include injuries of unknown source, mistreatment and involuntary seclusion) in accordance with Federal and State laws. The policy further indicated, 7. Reporting/Response included Alleged violation/violations will be reported to the Administrator and or designee immediately; Alleged violations shall be reported to the state survey agency, adult protective services, and all other required agencies (e.g. [exempli gratia; for example], law…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-18 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse, including misappropriation of property, for 2 (Resident 31 and Resident 94) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice, last reviewed 03/2026, indicated the Purpose was To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and to ensure reporting and investigating of alleged violations (to include injuries of unknown source, mistreatment and involuntary seclusion) in accordance with Federal and State laws. The policy further indicated, 5. Investigation included If an actual or alleged violation occurs, the resident will immediately be assessed and removed from any potential harm (as applicable); The administrator, or designee will oversee the center in conducting an internal investigation against any violation/alleged violation of abuse, neglect,…
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 · F2025-04-24 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide housekeeping services to ensure a clean and sanitary environment for four (Resident (R) 6, R7, R64, and R37) of 21 sampled residents. Each of these resident rooms, as well as all four of four shower rooms used by residents, were noted to need cleaning, with a black, fuzzy-appearing substance (which had a strong odor), growing around sinks, in bathrooms, on tiles, and high moisture areas. The findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Resident Rights, revealed the resident had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. A policy for housekeeping titled Housekeeping Daily Duties, dated 12/2001, revealed a schedule of what housekeeping would do on each day of the week. The policy states All corners and along all baseboards must be dust mopped to prevent buildup. When water pushes dust into corners, problems occur. 1. Observation during a tour of the A, B, C, and D-Hall shower rooms on 04/23/2025 revealed that all four shower rooms had a…
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 · E2025-04-24 · tag F0924 — patternPut firmly secured handrails on each side of hallways.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that two of four corridors were equipped with firmly secured handrails on each side of the hallway. Failure to have firmly secured handrails could affect residents' ability to safely ambulate down the hallways. The findings include: Review of an undated facility policy titled Resident Rights, revealed residents have a right to a safe environment. No specific policies related to maintenance or inspection of handrails were provided during the survey. Observation during a tour of the A and B Halls on 04/22/2025, initiated at 11:46 AM, revealed the following: 1. The handrail outside of resident room A7 was loose and shifted when light pressure was applied. 2. A corner joint was missing from the handrail outside of resident room A8 with a blunt end exposed. 3. The handrail outside of resident room A10 was missing screws that connected it to the support brackets, allowing the handrail to be easily moved when pressure was applied. 4. The handrail outside of resident room B2 did not have screws…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 that one resident (Resident (R) 6), who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs), out of a total sample of 21 sampled residents, received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. R6 failed to receive nail care as needed, and was noted with long, dirty nails on multiple occasions. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living Tasks, dated 01/012001, revealed, Any resident that has a deficit that keeps them from doing any kind of ADL's will be helped with whatever need they have. Per the policy, Nails should be observed daily and cut when appropriate. Review of the electronic medical record revealed R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with left-sided weakness. Review of R6's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-07-30 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive annual assessment within the required timeframe for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #1). A review of Resident #1's Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessments revealed the resident had not had an annual assessment completed in March 2021, as required. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 07/16/2021 at 2:58 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy for completing the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, but stated the facility followed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process to complete the assessments. A review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument version 3.0 User's Manual, revealed the annual assessment was a comprehensive assessment for a resident that the facility must complete on an annual basis. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/07/2020, with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Bladder Disorders, Atrial Fibrillation, and Esophageal…
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 · E2019-07-18 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all mechanical equipment was in safe operating condition. Observation in the dish room revealed a pan underneath the dishwasher sink was full of water. Interviews revealed during the night when the kitchen was closed water overflowed into the kitchen and storage room. The findings include: Review of the facility Equipment policy, revised September 2017, revealed all food service equipment would be clean, sanitary, and in proper working condition. Observation at 3:20 PM on 07/18/19 revealed a large plastic pan sitting on the floor underneath the sink that was connected to the dishwasher. The pan contained two to three gallons of water. The water was coming from a constant leak from a copper fitting underneath the scrapping sink that was connected to the dishwasher. Interview with Dietary Employee #1 at 4:30 PM on 07/18/19 revealed when she entered the kitchen at 5:00 AM each morning, the pan underneath the dishwasher/sink had overflowed onto the floor. The employee stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, homelike environment for residents who utilized one (1) of seven (7) bathrooms on the A Hall. Observation on 07/17/19 and 07/18/19, revealed a bedpan, fracture bedpan, and an emesis basin were lying on the bathroom floor in the bathroom for rooms A1 and A3. The items were being stored in a stack, uncovered, and not labeled with a resident name. The findings include: An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/19/19 at 9:00 AM, revealed the facility did not have a policy for storage of reusable resident equipment such as bedpans and basins. However, an interview with the Wound Care/Infection Control Nurse on 07/19/19 at 2:11 PM, revealed reusable resident supplies should be stored in plastic bags and labeled with the resident's name. Observation of the bathroom located between resident rooms A1 and A3 on 07/17/19 at 11:07 AM, revealed a bedpan with a fracture bedpan and an emesis basin placed inside it, lying on the floor beside the toilet. The items were not in a…
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 · D2019-07-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infection for one (1) of nineteen (19) sampled residents (Resident #66). Observations on 7/16/19 and 7/17/19 revealed Resident #66's catheter bag was touching and/or dragging the floor while hanging beneath the resident's wheelchair. The findings include: The Administrator stated on 07/18/19 at 1:04 PM, that the facility did not have a policy regarding indwelling urinary catheter care. However, interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/18/19 at 3:18 PM, revealed her expectation was that a urinary catheter drainage bag should not touch the floor. Review of Resident #66's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/14/18 with diagnoses of Hypertension, Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Thrombocytopenia, Spinal Stenosis, and Difficulty Walking. Review of Resident #66's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 · D2019-07-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the administration of enteral nutrition was consistent with physician orders for one (1) of nineteen (19) sampled residents (Resident #187). Resident #187 had a physician's order to increase tube feeding by 10 cubic centimeters (cc) every 72 hours until 65 cc per hour were being administered. However, observation and record review revealed the facility failed to increase the resident's tube feeding as ordered. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing on 07/18/19 at 3:20 PM revealed the facility did not have a policy for tube feedings. Review of Resident #187's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/27/19 and discharged the resident to an acute hospital on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses that included Debility, Cardiorespiratory conditions, Dysphagia, Anemia, Hypertension, Urinary Tract Infection, Parkinson's disease, Healed Traumatic Fracture, Chronic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BENJAMIN LANDA — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLATSCHEK, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 09/01/2018 |
| PLATSCHEK, GOLDIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 09/01/2018 |
| RUBENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 09/01/2017 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| OBANION, CINDY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/14/2023 |
| KELMAN, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| TACKETT, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kentucky Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 185173. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, 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.