Choctaw Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
311 West Cherry Street, Ackerman, MS 39735 · Government - County · 60 certified beds · (662) 285-3257 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,472 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-18)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.9% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.6% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.3% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.8% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.5% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.1% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.6% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.35 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.55 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 28.6% | 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 | 9.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. Inspectors cited this home for failing to submit its staffing data to CMS (F0851) — see the citation below; CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-03-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, policy and procedure reviews, the facility failed to follow the Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care plan for Resident #1's bed mobility, which resulted in a fall with multiple fractures for Resident #1. Resident #1 was one (1) of three (3) Residents reviewed for care plans. The facility policy and procedure dated 2/18/22 and revised date of 1/5/25 titled Comprehensive Care Plans stated: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with residents rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. Record Review of the facility's investigation documentation revealed the facility had documented that the fall of Resident #1 was caused by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 not following 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-18 · 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 policy and procedure reviews, interviews, observations, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure safety and to prevent an accident of a fall during bed mobility, resulting in multiple fractures to Resident #1. Resident #1 was one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accidents and safety. Findings Include: The facility policy and procedure titled Safe Resident Handling/Transfers dated 1/1/22 revised 1/5/25 and signed by the facility Director of Nursing (DON) read: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines. The interdisciplinary team designee will evaluate and assess each resident's individual mobility needs, taking into account other factors as well, such as weight, cognitive status. Staff will be educated on the use of safe…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow up on grievances from Resident council meetings related to missing silverware and condiments for four (4) of six (6) residents in the Resident Council Meeting. Resident #4, Resident #10, Resident #11, and Resident #35. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Resident and Family Grievances, undated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to support each resident's and family member's right to voice grievance without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal . Prompt efforts to resolve include facility acknowledgment of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance . An interview on 04/17/24 at 1:45 PM, at the Resident Council meeting, revealed Resident #4 (Resident Council President), Resident #10, Resident #11, and Resident #35, had concerns that they were at times still missing silverware and condiments on their…
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 · D2024-04-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician when a resident receiving enteral nutrition by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube developed drainage around insertion site for one (1) of two (2) residents observed with tube feedings. Resident #103 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, undated, revealed, It is a policy of this facility to utilize feeding tubes in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .6. b. Examination of the insertion site in order to identify, lessen, or resolve possible skin irritation and local infection and notify MD when need arises .The facility will notify and involve the physician or designated practitioner of any complications and in evaluating and managing care to address the complications and risk factors.…
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 before2024-04-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement comprehensive care plans for two (2) of the nineteen resident care plans reviewed. Resident #18 and Resident #36 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans undated revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment . Resident #18 Record review of Resident #18's care plan revealed, Problem/onset: 06/20/2018 Activities of Daily Living (ADL). I require assistance with ADL care .Approaches .Provide nail care weekly and as needed (PRN). During an observation on 4/16/24 at 9:05 AM, and again at 1:55 PM with interview, revealed Resident #18's fingernails on both hands were approximately…
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 · D2024-04-18 · 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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for two (2) of 56 residents observed during the initial tour related to nail care. Resident #18 and Resident #36. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), undated, revealed .Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: 1 .Bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care. 3 A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain .grooming and personal . hygiene. Resident #18 An observation on 4/16/24 at 9:05 AM, and again at 1:55 PM, revealed Resident #18 fingernails on both hands were approximately three-fourth (¾) inches long and jagged with a brown substance under each nail. Resident #18 stated, I guess they need to cut them. During an observation and interview on 04/16/24 at 3:18 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed…
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 · D2024-04-18 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a catheter had a catheter securing device for one (1) of six (6) catheters in the facility. Resident #28. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Appropriate Use of Indwelling Catheters undated, revealed .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 7. Indwelling urinary catheters (urethral and suprapubic) will be utilized in accordance with current standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible An observation during catheter care on 4/17/2024 at 10:15 AM, revealed Resident #28 did not have a catheter securement device, and the catheter was pulled tight with tension from the bedside drainage bag that was attached to the lower bed. An observation and interview on 4/17/2024 at 10:31 AM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 confirmed Resident #28 did not have a catheter securing device. An interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 4/17/2024 at 11:06 AM, revealed Resident #28 should have 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 · D2024-04-18 · 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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving enteral feedings via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube received appropriate care and services to prevent possible complications for one (1) of two (2) residents observed with tube feedings. Resident #103 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, undated, revealed, It is a policy of this facility to utilize feeding tubes in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .6. b. Examination of the insertion site in order to identify, lessen, or resolve possible skin irritation and local infection and notify MD when need arises .10. The facility will notify and involve the physician or designated practitioner of any complications and in evaluating and managing care to address 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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0851 — isolatedElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to submit accurate information into the Payroll Based Journal system as required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which was discovered through a CMS audit of period between January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023. Due to the audit findings, the facility was lowered to a one star on the five-star staffing rating system for the quarter of October 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 for one (1) of four (4) quarters reviewed. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions completed on 06/14/23, the State Agency (SA) determined this citation to be Past Non Compliance (PNC) prior to the SA's entrance on 4/15/24. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Payroll Based Journal, undated, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to electronically submit timely to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard soiled linen in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection for one (1) of three (3) care observations. Resident #28 Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Handling Soiled Linen undated, revealed Policy: It is the policy of this facility to handle, store, process, and transport linen in a safe and sanitary method to prevent the spread of infection . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Linen can become contaminated with pathogens from contact with intact skin, body substances, or from environmental contaminants . 3. Linen should not be allowed to touch the . floor and should be handled as little as possible . 4. Used or soiled linen shall be collected at the bedside and placed in a linen bag or designated linen receptacle . An observation during catheter care for Resident #28, on 4/17/2024 at 10:15 AM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, revealed after completing the necessary care, she discarded two (2) soiled bath…
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 · E2023-01-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent and heal pressure ulcers for two (2) of four (4) facility acquired pressure ulcers. Resident #2 and Resident #40 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pressure Injury Prevention and Management revealed this facility is committed to the prevention of avoidable pressure injuries, unless clinically unavoidable, and to provide treatment and services to heal the pressure/injury, prevent infection and the development of additional pressure ulcers/ injuries. Pressure ulcer/injury refers to localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. Avoidable means that the resident developed a pressure ulcer/injury, and that the facility did not do one or more of the following: evaluate the resident's clinical condition and risk factors; define and implement interventions…
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 · D2023-01-11 · 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 staff and resident representative interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and report the results of an allegation of abuse for one (1) of six (6) grievances reviewed. Resident #1. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Abuse/Neglect Reporting, dated 12/20, revealed, .5. The facility will thoroughly investigate all alleged violations under the direct supervision of the Administrator . On [DATE] at 8:45 AM, in a phone interview with complaint Resident #1's Resident Representative (RR), revealed he filed the complaint because the resident had told him that a black worker hit her in the head, and he feels that was what caused her death. He stated he did not report this when she told him, but he did tell the nurse after the resident passed away. He stated the death certificate had the resident's cause of death as Congestive Heart Failure. On [DATE] at 9:15 AM, in an interview with the facility Administrator, revealed Complaint…
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 before2023-01-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for two (2) of 16 care plans reviewed. Resident #2 and Resident #40 Findings include: A review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans policy revealed, it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Resident #2 A record review of Resident #2's comprehensive care plan, Problem/Need: Problem onset dated 1/8/23 Problem: I have a stage 3 pressure ulcer to my sacrum .Approaches: Clean stage 3 to sacrum with Dakin's, apply Silvercel to wound bed, cover with silicone border dressing daily, and PRN (as needed) for soilage/drainage. An interview and observation on 01/09/23 at 2:15 PM revealed, Registered…
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 · E2019-10-02 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the Responsible Party (RP) and the Ombudsman in writing, regarding residents transfer to the hospital, Resident #2, Resident #34, and Resident #63; for three (3) of three (3) residents reviewed for hospitalization. Findings Include: Resident #2 Review of the facility's Bed Hold Policy, not dated, revealed, Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed, in writing, of the bed-hold and return policy. Review of Nurses notes, dated 8/22/19, revealed Resident #2 was transferred to the local hospital at 7:45 AM, due to hypoglycemia, with a blood sugar of 28. On 8/22/19 at 12:30 PM, the facility called and notified the RP that Resident #2 would be placed on bed hold due to hospitalization. There was no evidence that written notification of the transfer was provided to the RP. There is no evidence to indicate the Ombudsman was notified of Resident #2's transfer to the hospital. On 10/02/19 at 10:35 AM, during an interview, the Administrator…
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 · E2019-10-02 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide written notice, to the Responsible Party (RP) and Ombudsman, of a bed hold upon transfer to hospital; Resident #2, Resident #34, and Resident #63; for three (3) of three (3) residents reviewed for hospitalization. Findings Include: Review of the facility's Bed Hold Policy, undated, revealed Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed, in writing, of the bed-hold and return policy. Resident #2 Review of a Nurse's note, dated 8/22/19 revealed Resident #2 was transferred to the local hospital at 7:45 AM, and admitted , due to hypoglycemia. There was no evidence that written notification of the bed hold was provided to the RP. Resident #63 Record review revealed Resident #63 was transferred to the hospital on 9/13/19, and admitted . Record review revealed documentation in the nurse's note, dated 9/13/19, concerning the resident's condition, Physician notification and Responsible Party (RP) notification by phone. Record review revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$12,472 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-03-18
- $4,194 — penalty dated 2023-11-06
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHOCTAW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/01/2014 |
| PROCTOR, TAMMY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/31/2016 |
| MARINELLI, STEVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2020 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 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.
What families pay in MS
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 Mississippi 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 255347. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-18, 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.