Community Place
116 Lake Vista Place, Brandon, MS 39047 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (601) 355-0617 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 held steady at 4 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 | 24.1% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 1.6% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.0% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.4% | 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 | 7.4% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.0% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.6% | 27.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.4% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.45 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.88 | 2.86 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
‡ 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.
57.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 83 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.2% 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 31 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% 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 | 57.1%CMS range 45.7–64.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.0–15.0 | 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 | 45.2% | 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 | 61.3% | 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 | 41.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.5% | 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 | 8.8%CMS range 5.4–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.31 | 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 55.2 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.52 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.30 on weekdays — 34% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-05-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to properly store frozen foods in the freeze for one (1) of four (4) survey days, as evidenced by, unsealed bags in the freezer. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings Include:Record review of the facility's policy Storage of Frozen Food with a review date of 11/23 revealed The facility ensures the quality and safety of frozen food through accepted storage practices .8. Opened boxes with liners should be closed and sealed tightly with packing tape or twists ties .On 05/18/2026 at 10:15 AM, during the initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager (DM), nine (9) food items in the freezer were found to not be properly stored. The following items were observed: 1. Red [NAME] sausage in a plastic bag - bag was not sealed. 2. [NAME] dinner rolls in a brown box - plastic liner was torn open. 3. Rid's cobbler crust in a box - plastic bag torn open. 4. Bake Craft bread sticks, 10-pound box -…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure advance directives were completed and readily available on the charts for seven (7) of twenty-three (23) residents reviewed for advance directives. (Residents #1, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, and 43) Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Advance Directives, undated, revealed, Policy Statement: Advance directives will be represented in accordance with state law and facility policy. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 4. Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advance directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical record . A record review of the medical records for Residents #1, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, and 43 revealed there was no documentation regarding information as to whether or not the resident had executed an advance directive. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 01/15/1996 with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis, Resident #28 on 07/09/2019 with diagnoses including Parkinson's…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to a dignified existence related to a urinary catheter drainage bag that did not have a privacy covering for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for catheters. (Resident #16) Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Resident Rights, undated, revealed, .Policy Interpretation and Implementation .1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of the facility. These rights include the resident's right to: a. a dignified existence . On 01/14/2025 at 8:12 AM, during an observation, Resident #16 was in bed and there was a catheter drainage bag that was positioned on the right-hand side of the bed facing the door, with no privacy cover. The urine in the drainage bag was visible from the open door. On 01/14/2025 at 12:31 PM, during an observation, Resident #16 remained in bed. The urinary drainage bag remained uncovered with yellow urine visible. There was no privacy covering for the drainage bag. On 01/14/2025 at 12:32 PM,…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to accommodate the needs and preferences of residents who required adaptive equipment to take a shower for (1) of (23) sampled residents. Resident #1. Findings Include: A review of the facility policy, Resident Rights,, undated, revealed, Policy Statement .Policy Interpretation and Implementation. 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the residents right to .h. be supported by the facility in exercising his or her rights . On 1/14/25 at 10:38 AM, during an interview with Resident #1, he revealed that he would like to take a shower from time to time. He indicated that he was told there is no shower chair available for him, so he has to rely on bed baths. On 1/15/25 at 9:41 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #2 (CNA) explained that he has cared for the resident over the past six months. He explains that the facility does not have a shower chair to accommodate his request for a shower but does provide the resident with 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 · D2025-01-16 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from a physical restraint imposed for staff convenience related to fall prevention for one (1) of 23 sampled residents. Resident #52. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Use of Restraints, revised April 2017, revealed, .Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptoms and never for discipline or staff convenience or the prevention of falls . On 01/14/25 at 09:05 AM, during an observation, Resident # 52 was sitting in a wheelchair with a lap table secured to the wheelchair. On 01/14/25 at 12:23 PM, during an observation of the lunch meal in the dining room, Resident #52 did not have the lap tray attached to her wheelchair. Her posture was stable, and she was not leaning during the meal. A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) attached a lap tray to Resident #52's chair before she was transported out of the room. On 01/16/2025 at 3:11 PM, during an interview, CNA #3 who is the Lead CNA, stated the lap tray was used to…
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 · D2025-01-16 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide nail care to a diabetic resident requiring nail care by a Registered Nurse (RN) for one (1) of 23 residents whose nails were observed. Resident #31. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, undated, revealed, .Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal hygiene . On 01/14/2025 at 8:29 AM, during an observation, Resident #31 was seated in his wheelchair in his room. His fingernails were noted to be long, dirty, and jagged. On 01/15/2025 at 12:21 PM, during an observation in the dining room, Resident #31 was seen eating lunch. His fingernails remained long, dirty, and jagged. On 01/16/2025 at 12:28 PM, during an interview, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that two Registered Nurses are responsible for providing diabetic nail care. He explained that residents' nails are supposed to…
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 · D2025-01-16 · 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 prevent possible complications related to a resident with an indwelling suprapubic catheter, as evidenced by the catheter drainage bag coming into direct contact with the floor for one (1) of 1 resident reviewed with a catheter. Resident #16 Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Catheter Care, Urinary, undated, revealed, .The purpose of this procedure I to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections .Infection Control .7 Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor . During an observation on 01/14/2025 at 8:12 AM, Resident #16 was in bed and there was a catheter drainage bag that was positioned on the right-hand side of the bed facing the door. The drainage bag was touching the floor. During an observation on 01/14/2025 at 12:31 PM, Resident #16 remained in bed. The urinary drainage bag remained touching the floor in the room. During an interview on 01/14/2025 at 12:32 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 stated he was responsible…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent possible complications related to the storage of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) mask, for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for respiratory. Resident #47 Findings included: On 1/14/2025 at 8:49 AM, during an interview, Resident #47 stated she uses her CPAP machine nightly. She explained that the mask had never been stored in a designated bag and was left on top of the dresser by her bedside. On 1/15/2025 at 12:08 PM, during an observation, Resident #47 was eating lunch in her room, and her CPAP mask remained on the table without being stored in a bag. On 1/15/2025 at 2:32 PM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 confirmed that the mask was not in a designated storage bag on 1/14/2025 or 1/15/2025. She stated the mask should be stored in a bag to prevent it from getting dirty and causing complications. On 1/15/2025 at 4:15 PM, during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) #1, the Infection Preventionist, stated the mask should always be stored in a bag to prevent…
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 · D2025-01-16 · 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 observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications and a medication cart were locked and secured for one (1) of three (3) medication carts observed. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Medication Labeling and Storage undated, revealed, .The facility stores all medications and biologicals in locked compartments . A review of the facility's policy, Administering Medications, undated, policy revealed, .Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner as prescribed. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .During administration of medications, the medication cart will be kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse or aide .No medications are to be kept on top of the cart. The cart must be clearly visible to personnel administering medications, and all outside surfaces must be inaccessible to residents or others passing by . On 01/14/2025 at 7:40 AM, during an observation, an unattended, unlocked medication cart was noted with an unlabeled white tablet in a medication cup left…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — isolatedConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and the Facility Assessment review, the facility failed to ensure all required elements were included in the Facility Assessment, including specific staffing needs by shift, a plan for recruitment and retention of staff, and contingency planning that do not require activation of the facility's emergency plan for three (3) of (3) days of survey. Findings Included: A record review of the facility's Facility Hierarchy (Facility Assessment), signed 7/1/2024, revealed the Plan for average daily schedule of direct care staff to meets in 24-hour period was three (3) Registered Nurses (RNs), seven (7) Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and 17 Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs). The assessment did not indicate specific staffing needs for each shift, based on changes to its resident population. Further review revealed the Facility Assessment did not include any information or plans regarding staff recruitment and retention, and did not include contingency plans for events that do not require the emergency operations plan to be activated. On 1/16/2025 at 5:01 PM, during an…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not wash her hands or change her gloves during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) care for one (1) of (1) resident reviewed for care. Resident #22. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Wound Care undated, revealed, .Steps in the Procedure .Wash and dry your hands thoroughly . Loosen tape and remove dressing. Discard soiled dressing and gloves into appropriate receptacles. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. Put on gloves . On 01/15/2025 at 3:46 PM, during an observation of PEG site care and interview with LPN #2 revealed LPN #2 did not change gloves throughout the procedure. LPN #2 used the same gloves to remove the soiled dressing, cleanse the site, and pat the site dry. LPN #2 confirmed that she did not change gloves during the procedure and acknowledged that gloves should have been changed between removing the soiled dressing and cleaning the site. On 01/16/2025 at 9:55 AM, during an…
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 · D2023-08-17 · 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, interviews, record reviews and facility policy review the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan related to a resident's food preferences for one (1) of 19 sampled residents. Resident #12 Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy Using the Care Plan, undated, revealed. The care plan shall be used in developing the resident's daily care routines and will be available to staff personnel who have responsibility for providing care or services to the resident . Policy Interpretation and Implementation .6. Documentation must be consistent with the resident's care plan . Record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #12 on 05/01/2018 and he had diagnoses including Hypokalemia, Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease, and Dysphagia. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/21/23 revealed Resident #12 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated he was cognitively intact. Record review of the Care Plan for Resident #12 revealed 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 · D2023-08-17 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility statement review, the facility failed to ensure an enteral feeding pump was operated by licensed staff for one (1) of two (2) residents observed with Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube feedings. Resident # 43. Findings include: The facility provided a written statement on letterhead and signed by the Director of Nurses (DON), that the facility does not have a policy that states which discipline can turn a feeding pump on or off. On 8/14/23 at 10:54 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was observed placing Resident #43's enteral feeding pump on hold. The CNA then repositioned the resident by turning her from her right side to her left side. After the resident's care was completed, CNA #1 turned Resident #43's enteral feeding pump back on. On 8/14/23 at 11:00 AM, in an interview with CNA #1, she confirmed that she had put Resident #43's feeding pump on pause, but stated she is allowed to pause and restart the pump, but she is not…
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 · D2023-08-17 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to support the nutritional well-being for a resident while respecting an individual's right to make choices about his or her diet for one (1) of 19 residents sampled. Resident #12 Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy Food and Nutrition Services, revised October 2017, revealed .Each resident is provided with nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident . Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The multidisciplinary staff, including nursing staff, the attending physician and the dietitian will assess each resident's nutritional needs, food likes, dislikes, and eating habits . 4. Reasonable efforts will be made to accommodate resident choices and preferences . A record review of the facility's policy Substitutions, revised April 2007, revealed . Food substitutions will be made as appropriate or necessary . Policy Interpretation and Implementation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HILL, CHARLES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 03/16/2016 |
| MORRIS, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/12/2009 |
| SHELTON, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2016 |
| COMMUNITY PLACE | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/29/2020 |
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. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 255285. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.