Madonna Manor
2344 Amsterdam Road, Villa Hills, KY 41017 · Non profit - Church related · 60 certified beds · (859) 426-6400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $181,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-23)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 1 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 and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 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.
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 | 9.4% | 13.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.7% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 83.3% | 17.7% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 8.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.5% | 29.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.1% | 16.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.7% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.7% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.0% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.08 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 2.14 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.7% 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 74 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.7%CMS range 52.8–72.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.4–14.1 | 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 | 52.7% | 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 | 51.4% | 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 | 56.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.4% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 93.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.7% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 4.6–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 60 beds and averages 54.5 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 6 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 6.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.83 is at or above 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 6.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.04 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.08 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above 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 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 16 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-08-23 · 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, review of the website www.weather.gov, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure each resident received the electronic monitoring devices to prevent unsafe wandering and elopement, for 1 of 18 sampled residents, Resident (R) 1.Review of R1's Investigation Report revealed R1 was found by State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) 2 outside the building, approximately 84 feet from the employee entrance/exit, on 08/07/2025 at 11:10 PM as she was getting out of her car from the back parking lot of Household B. Per the report, STNA2 brought R1, who appeared to be confused and was unstable with ambulation, back into the facility to get warm. During interviews conducted with facility staff who were on duty during the time of the 08/07/2025 elopement, they stated they had last seen the resident at approximately 9:30 PM and were unaware R1 left the building unsupervised until they received notice from Registered Nurse (RN) 1.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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident's physician of a significant change in the resident's physical status for 2 of 11 sampled residents, Resident (R) 2 and R3. 1. On 12/01/2024, in the early hours of the morning, R3 was observed by Registered Nurse (RN) 2 to have a significant change in mental status. Despite this critical finding, RN2 failed to notify the physician about the resident's condition. At 7:00 AM, during the shift change report, RN2 relayed to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 that the resident's mental status had deviated from the baseline during the night. However, neither nurse assessed R3 or notified the physician of his change in mental status. At approximately 11:30 AM, R3's family alerted LPN1 that R3 was febrile, unresponsive, and had tremors. The family requested the nurse to call emergency medical services (EMS) for transfer to the local emergency department (ED). R3 presented to the ED in an altered mental status, septic, and in atrial fibrillation with rapid…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-03 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident to meet professional standards of quality care for 2 of 11 sampled residents, Resident (R) 2 and R3. 1. On 11/26/2024, the facility admitted R3 with an intrathecal (the space between the spinal cord and the membranes that protect it) pain pump infection, which was being treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy via a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line. The facility failed to develop a person centered baseline care plan with interventions to address R3's infection, antibiotic therapy, care of the PICC line, or physician notification for worsening condition. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 12/20/2024 and was determined to exist on 11/26/2024, in the area of 42 CFR §483.21 Baseline Care Plan, F655 at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of a J. The facility was notified of the IJ on 12/20/2024 at…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-03 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to promptly identify and intervene with a significant change in a resident's condition, for the resident to receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 11 sampled residents, Resident (R) 3. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include post-surgical infection of the intrathecal (the space between the spinal cord and the membranes that protect it) pain pump. The resident was to receive two weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy by a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line. However, the resident did not receive four of those ordered doses. In addition, the MAR revealed the physician ordered metronidazole (an antibiotic) to be administered orally every eight hours, but R3 did not receive five of those doses. On 12/01/2024, in the early hours of the morning, R3 was observed by Registered Nurse (RN) 2 to have a significant change in mental…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-03 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 2 sampled residents receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy, Resident (R) 3. On 11/26/2024, the facility admitted R3 with diagnoses to include post laminectomy syndrome (chronic pain following back surgery; a laminectomy was removing part or all of the bony arch that covered the spinal cord) and post-surgical infection of the intrathecal (the space between the spinal cord and the membranes that protect it) pain pump. The resident was scheduled to receive two weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy while at the facility. Review of R3's Medication Administration Record [MAR] revealed the physician had ordered cefepime (an antibiotic given for infection) to be administered IV twice daily, but he did not receive four of those ordered doses. In addition, the MAR revealed the physician ordered metronidazole…
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 · G2025-01-03 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to provide services to prevent pressure ulcers for 1 of 11 sampled residents, Resident (R) 2. On 10/18/2024 an unstageable wound to R2's left bottom heel was found by Physical Therapy (PT) staff. The nursing staff was notified; however, they failed to put interventions in place to care for the wound and prevent further worsening. In addition, the facility failed to include interventions to address R2's need to ensure pressure off-loading boots were on the resident and to off-load the wound while in the bed or up in the wheelchair. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pressure Injury Prevention Guidelines, revised 11/23/2022, revealed measures would be taken to prevent avoidable pressure injuries and to promote the healing of existing ones. Per the policy, the facility would implement evidence-based interventions for all residents assessed as being at risk or who currently had a pressure injury. The policy stated these interventions would be resident-centered and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-12-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to store and prepare foods under sanitary conditions. Observations on 09/30/2025, 10/01/2025, and 12/03/2025 included cleaning cloths lying on the counter and not in the sanitizer bucket, trash cans without lids in the food production area, and foods in the dry storage area not labeled, dated, and expired. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 53 current residents.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Safety Guidelines, not dated, revealed cross-contamination could be biological, chemical, and physical.Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Preparation, not dated, revealed wiping cloth buckets should be assigned an area, stored off the floor and away from food and food contact surfaces. Per the policy, wiping cloths shall be stored in sanitizer solution off the floor and away from food and food contact surfaces, and wiping cloths shall be stored in sanitizer solution when not in-use. The policy stated food products shall be labeled and must…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of a disinfectant label, and review of the facility's policies, 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 by ensuring staff involved in direct resident contact followed hand hygiene procedures and wore required personal protective equipment (PPE) for 1 of 16 sampled residents, Resident (R) 20. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a barrier was used to protect an enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) supply cart from a blood pressure cuff that had not been sanitized.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 08/30/2022, last revised date 10/07/2025, revealed the program was designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases…
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 · D2025-02-27 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 policies, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to be free from restraint for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident (R) 15. On 01/13/2025 at approximately 2:00 PM, a Dining Aide (DA) 1 tied a washcloth around one wheel of R15's wheelchair. Activity Assistant 2 saw R15 on the floor around 3:00 PM. At that time, Activity Assistant 2 notified State Trained Nurse Aide/Kentucky Medical Aide (STNA/KMA) 14 who was in the hall and STNA15. The facility provided an acceptable Plan of Correction (POC) on 01/31/2025 alleging past noncompliance. The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the deficient practice was corrected on 02/01/2025, following the facility's implementation of the acceptable POC and before the start of the survey. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, effective 10/24/2022 and reviewed 02/26/2025, revealed staff was to immediately report all allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation or…
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 · D2025-02-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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, the facility failed to implement the abuse policy for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident (R) 15. A Dining Aide (DA) 1 tied a washcloth around one wheel of R15's wheelchair around 2:00 PM on 01/13/2025. State Trained Nurse Aide (STNA) 13 witnessed DA1 tie the washcloth to the wheel of R15's wheelchair, but failed to report the incident, and R15 fell from her wheelchair. The facility provided an acceptable Plan of Correction (POC) on 01/31/2025 alleging past noncompliance. The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the deficient practice was corrected on 02/01/2025, following the facility's implementation of the acceptable POC and before the start of the survey. The findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse policy titled, Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, effective 10/24/2022, revealed the facility reported all allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources and misappropriation of resident property. Per the policy,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, review of the manufacturer's instructions for use, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish and 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 2 of 11 sampled residents, Residents (R) 4 and R8. 1. Observation on 12/12/2024 of R4's room revealed the resident was under contact isolation precautions. However, staff was observed in the room without wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Further observation on 12/12/2024 revealed another staff member entered R4's room and did not don (put on) PPE. 2. Observation and interview on 12/12/2024 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 revealed she carried a contaminated glucometer (blood sugar measuring device), without wearing gloves,…
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 · D2025-01-03 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 the resident's right to privacy was honored for 1 of 11 sampled residents, Resident (R) 8. On 12/18/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 lifted R8's shirt and exposed her abdomen while she administered an insulin injection to the resident. R8 was seated at a dining table with three other residents eating lunch. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 10/24/2022, revealed the resident had a right to be treated with respect and dignity. Further review revealed the resident had a right to personal privacy and confidentiality to include personal privacy for medical treatment. Review of R8's Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/28/2024 with diagnoses to include left hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (stroke), type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R8's admission 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 · D2025-01-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored according to professional standards for 1 of 3 medication carts where an opened pharmacy delivery tote with medications was left unattended. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, undated, revealed drugs and biologicals stored in the facility were kept in locked compartments, accessible only to authorized personnel. According to the policy, nursing staff was responsible for managing medication storage. Per the policy, compartments containing drugs and biologicals must be locked when not in use, and any unlocked medications should not be left unattended. Observation of a medication cart in the Household B Hall on 12/12/2024 at 10:31 AM, revealed an opened pharmacy delivery tote full of medications. The delivery tote was left opened, unsecured, and unattended out in the open as residents and staff walked by. The tote contained two boxes of multiple single dose albuterol (bronchodilator) inhalation solution packets…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-23 · 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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner and in an environment that promoted the maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life. The facility failed to ensure residents had a right to communicate with and had access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for 2 of 22 sampled and supplemental residents, Resident (R) 7 and R10. R7's representative and R10's representative stated they were unsuccessful when they attempted multiple times to communicate with the facility via telephone. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 10/24/2022, revealed the resident had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. 1. Review of R7's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/08/2013 with diagnoses of vascular dementia, hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-23 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 policies, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to be informed of and participate in his or her treatment for 1 of 22 sampled and supplemental residents, Resident (R) 10. Staff refused to administer a COVID-19 test to R10 when requested by the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 10/24/2022, revealed the resident had the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment, including the right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment. Review of the facility's policy titled, Coronavirus Testing, revised 09/26/2022, revealed anyone with even mild symptoms of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should receive a viral test as soon as possible. Further review revealed the facility would obtain an order for COVID-19 testing from the physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist to provide or obtain laboratory services for a resident. Additional review revealed the facility would…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-23 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's medical record included documentation that indicated the resident either received the influenza immunization or did not receive the influenza immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident (R) 43. A review of R43's immunization record revealed the absence of documentation confirming the administration or refusal of the influenza vaccine for 2023-2024. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 10/24/2022, revealed residents would be offered the influenza vaccine each year between October 1 and March 31. Further review revealed documentation would reflect the education provided and details regarding whether the resident received the immunization. Review of R43's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/19/2023 with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and Alzheimer's disease. Review of R43's, Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 5 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to establish and 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. Observations of meal service on 10/22/19 and 10/23/19 revealed staff failed to perform proper hand hygiene and gloving technique during set up of silverware and glasses prior to serving resident's meal. Further observations revealed staff failed to perform proper hand hygiene while serving resident's meals and were observed touching residents and the serving bar numerous times during the meal service without washing or sanitizing hands. Observation of Resident #49 on 10/24/19 revealed a urinary catheter drainage bag lying underneath his/her wheelchair, on the floor. Observation of staff during medication administration pass on 10/24/19 revealed staff failed to don clean gloves prior to administration of eye drops. The findings include:…
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 · E2019-10-25 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized work area. Observations during the survey period and interviews with staff revealed that not all staff members were equipped with the necessary means to be alerted if a resident call light was activated. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Answering the Call Light, revised October 2010, revealed the purpose of this procedure was to respond to the residents' request and needs. Continued review revealed staff were to report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly and answer the resident's call as soon as possible. Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes, dated 06/10/19, revealed during the discussion regarding nursing services, the residents that were present, expressed concern about the call light lengthy response time. Review of the Resident Council…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-25 · 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 review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality, for two (2) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents (Resident #49 and Resident #53). Observations on 10/22/19, 10/23/19, and 10/24/19 revealed Resident #49 with catheter drainage bag and catheter tubing fully exposed while in commons area of his/her household and during other activities. Observations on 10/24/19 revealed Resident #53 with his/her name printed on outside of his/her non-skid socks. Further observations revealed student at facility identified Resident #53 by name, by observing resident's name located on top of his/her sock. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident's Rights, undated, revealed the facility would provide adequate, appropriate care and services with respect for human dignity and take into account 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 · D2019-10-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs, and included resident goals and desired outcomes and preferences. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for residents with pressure ulcers for one (1) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents, (Resident #49). Resident #49 had pressure ulcers of the bilateral heels, left buttock and sacral region. However, the facility failed to develop an interdisciplinary care plan related to being at risk for skin breakdown/pressure or actual skin breakdown for pressure wounds to the sacral region, right heel, left heel or buttocks. The findings include: Interview with Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/25/19 at 11:20 AM, revealed the facility did not have a Care Plan Policy. The DON reported the facility utilized the Resident 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 · D2019-10-25 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care for one (1) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents (Resident # 53). Review of Resident #53's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated on 05/09/18 with a revision date of 09/28/18, revealed no documented evidence the CCP was revised after fall events on 04/26/19, 07/10/19 and 10/16/19 even though the Fall Investigations related to these falls identified specific fall interventions to be implemented to prevent falls of the same nature. The findings include: Interview with the 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$181,278 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $19,145 — penalty dated 2025-08-23
- $162,133 — penalty dated 2025-01-03
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH — 18 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI LIVING COMMUNITIES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/10/2017 |
| COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| SYLVANIA FRANCISCAN HEALTH | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| LIPSEY, PRENTICE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| MBANU, TERIKA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/05/2024 |
| MELFI, MITCH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/23/2016 |
| CECIL, CAITLIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/08/2021 |
| FINN, CHRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2007 |
| GRUBBS, STACEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/06/2021 |
| HAZARD, TED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/08/2017 |
| MUNROE, KYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/08/2015 |
| MURRIEL, SHELLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2024 |
| NAGEL, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/12/2015 |
| SNODGRASS, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2016 |
| WINE, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| IFFLAND, ALISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2017 |
| REHMER, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/05/2024 |
| DICON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2025 |
| OHIO NEWSPAPERS, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2025 |
| PRELUDE SYSTEMS, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2025 |
| SKILLED CARE PHARMACY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2024 |
| THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| ULRICHPINCIOTTI DESIGN GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2025 |
| BRINSON, ROGER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/04/2022 |
| CORROU, DENISE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/17/2025 |
| EVANS, ELAINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/26/2022 |
| HOWARD, CASEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2022 |
| KUMAR, KELASH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| LONGHIN-HOWARD, JOAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/06/2007 |
| LUNSFORD, DALE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/12/2019 |
| MCFARLAND, DIANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/18/2023 |
| OWENS, MICHELE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| REEVES, KELLIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| TEMPLE, PAMELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/25/2022 |
| THOMAS, LINDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/27/2023 |
| VOELKER, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| YELTON, MITZI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/06/2022 |
| CONCEPT REHAB, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/05/2015 |
| RICHTER AND ASSOCIATES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| LUCAS, GINA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/28/2024 |
| STIDHAM, KATHRYN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 82 rows in the source record cover these 42 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
12 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $856K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 185241. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-05, 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.