Delta Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center
200 Dr Martin Luther King Jr Drive, Cleveland, MS 38732 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 75 certified beds · (662) 843-5347 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.0% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 20.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 1.6% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.8% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.5% | 23.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 11.6% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.3% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.2% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.8% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 37.9% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
42.1% 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 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 28 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 42.1%CMS range 31.8–59.5 | 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 | 12.4%CMS range 8.7–16.7 | 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 | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 42.9% | 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 | 32.1% | 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 | 98.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.6%CMS range 3.9–13.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 75 beds and averages 66.8 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-07-31 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review, and Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data review, the facility failed to submit PBJ data accurately to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for one (1) of four (4) quarters reviewed. 2nd Quarter, 2025 (January 1 through March 31, 2025) Findings Include: Review of the typed statement on facility letterhead dated 7/30/25 and signed by the Administrator (ADM) revealed that the facility did not have a policy on PBJ submission. Record review of the “PBJ Staffing Data Report” revealed the facility triggered for excessively low weekend staffing for the 2nd quarter, 2025 (January 1 through March 31, 2025). During an interview with the ADM on 7/31/25 at 9:00 AM, she acknowledged that the corporate office was responsible for submitting the PBJ information. She confirmed that administrative staffing hours were not included in the data submitted, which contributed to the inaccurate representation of staffing levels.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed and transmitted within the required timeframes in accordance with the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual for one (1) of 21 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Resident #58) Findings include: Review of a typed statement on facility letterhead dated 7/30/25 revealed the facility does not have a policy on MDS completion. The statement further indicated that the interdisciplinary team follows the RAI manual. Record review of the Discharge MDS for Resident #58 revealed the assessment was not completed or transmitted within the timeframes outlined in the RAI User’s Manual. Further review of the assessment revealed Resident #58’s discharge occurred on 7/1/25, but the MDS was not completed and/or transmitted, which exceeded the required 14-day timeframe. Section Z0500B (completion date) of the MDS was left unsigned. Review of the RAI Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.7, revealed a Discharge…
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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete section N of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for a resident taking anticoagulant medication for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #3 Findings include: Review of the typed statement on facility letterhead read, “(Proper name of the facility) does not have a policy on MDS completion. (Proper Name of the facility's) Interdisciplinary Team follows the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual.” Record review of Resident #3’s June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order dated 3/1/25, “Rivaroxaban (blood thinner) oral tablet 10 mg (milligrams) Give 10 mg (milligrams) via PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) tube in the morning,” which was initialed as administered for all days in June. Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/26/25 revealed under Section N, Resident #3 was documented as not taking an anticoagulant medication. A telephone interview with the Regional Case Mix Manager on 7/30/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · 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 observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one (1) of the twenty-one resident care plans reviewed. (Resident #36). Findings Include Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with review date January 2023, revealed, Policy Statement: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . On 7/29/2025 at 11:34 AM during an observation and interview with Resident #36, it was noted that the resident had dark facial hair on her upper lip, approximately one-fourth of an inch long, along with sparce hair on her chin. The resident expressed a desire for more frequent shaving, stating, They usually shave me about every two weeks. I would like it to be clean shaven more often. On 7/30/2025 at 8:27 AM during an interview and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · 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 to maintain personal hygiene for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for ADL's. (Resident #36). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting revised March 2018, revealed, Policy Statement .Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene . During an observation and interview on 7/29/2025 at 11:34 AM with Resident #36, it was noted that the resident had dark facial hair, approximately one-fourth of an inch long on her upper lip, along with sparce hair on her chin. The resident expressed a desire for more frequent shaving, stating, They usually shave me about every two weeks. I would like it to be clean shaven more often. During an interview and observation on…
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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored in the medication room for one (1) of four (4) medication storage areas observed in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled “Storage of Medications,” last reviewed [DATE], revealed: “Policy Statement: The facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner . During the initial entrance tour of the facility on [DATE] at 6:10 PM, the medication room door on the A-hallway was observed to be open, with multiple medication cards sitting on a counter visible from the hallway. Also observed was a cup with what appeared to be medication sitting on a small cabinet, also visible from the hallway. During an observation and interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on [DATE] at 6:13 PM, she confirmed the medication room door was open and stated it should never be left open. She stated the medications on the cards on the counter…
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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure adaptive equipment was provided to a resident during dining for one (1) of seven (7) residents reviewed for dining. Resident #3 Review of the facility policy titled “Assistance with Meals” reviewed 6/18/25, revealed, “Residents Who May Benefit from Assistive Devices: 1. Adaptive devices (special eating equipment and utensils) will be provided for residents who need or request them .” An observation on 7/28/25 at 6:24 PM of Resident #3 revealed she was lying in bed. She was holding a regular spoon and dipping it into a divided plate that contained remnants of the pureed dinner meal. Record review of the 7/28/25 dinner meal ticket revealed Resident #3 was listed to have a weighted spoon and fork. Record review of Resident #3's Diet Requisition Form dated 2/5/25 revealed under, Request for services: Divided plate and weighted utensils. An observation and interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 7/28/25 at 6:31 PM confirmed Resident #3 did not have weighted utensils. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-12 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from significant medication errors when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 failed to administer prescribed antianxiety medications for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for medication administration. Resident #1. Based on interviews and record reviews the State Agency (SA) determined that all corrective actions had been implemented as of 11/14/24 and the facility was in compliance on 11/15/24, prior to the SA entrance on 2/12/25. This was cited as Past Non-Compliance. Findings Include: A record review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications with a revision date of April 2019 revealed Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed .22. The individual administering the medication initials the resident's Medication Administrator Record (MAR) on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones . A review of the facility investigation dated 11/15/24 revealed that on 11/13/24,…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 safely administer a resident's medication when staff failed to check the five rights of medication administration and sign the medication as administered for two (2) of five (5) residents observed during medication administration observations. (Resident #2 and #54). Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications revised April 2019 revealed, Policy heading: Medications are administered in a safe and timely and as prescribed . Policy Interpretation and implementation: .10. The individual administering the medications checks the label three (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication . 22. The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR (medication administration record) on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones . An observation of the Respiratory Therapist (RT) on…
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 · D2023-09-13 · 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 record review, staff interview and facility document reveiew the facility failed to notify the Resident Representative (RR) of a change in a medication dosage for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for notification. Resident # 1 Findings include: Record review of a typed document, undated, and signed by the Administrator revealed (Proper name of facility) does not have a policy related to notification of the responsible party of changes in Physician orders or treatments. Record review of the Complaint Intake information provided to the State Agency from the Resident Representative (RR) in reference to Resident #1 revealed she was not notified of the increase in the administration of a Fentanyl patch from 25 micrograms per hour (mcg/hr) to Fentanyl 50 mcg/hr. A phone interview prior to survey entrance on 9/8/23 at 2:00 PM, with Resident #1's RR, revealed all of the information regarding the complaints regarding her father-in-law was in the intake information provided to the agency. Record review of…
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 before2023-09-13 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review the facility failed to provide a clean environment, as evidenced by staff failure to remove soiled items from the shower room for one (1) of two (2) shower rooms observed for cleanliness. Findings include: Record review of a typed document, undated, and signed by the Administrator revealed (Proper name of facility) does not have a policy related to the cleaning of shower rooms. An observation of the A wing shower room on 9/12/23 at 8:20 AM, revealed four (4) adult briefs saturated with a yellow liquid on the floor of the shower room. Two (2) of the briefs were on an open trash bag and 2 briefs were directly on the floor. A wash cloth with a dry light brown substance on it was draped over the safety bar in the middle shower stall. An observation and interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 on 9/12/23 at 8:21 AM, revealed housekeeping was responsible for mopping the floors, but the CNA giving showers is responsible for picking up linen and throwing away briefs. She verified that there were 4 soiled adult…
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 · D2023-09-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure staff administered and removed transdermal Fentanyl patches as ordered for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for the use of Fentanyl patches. Resident # 1. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy, titled Administering Medications with a revision date of April 2019, revealed Policy Heading: Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame .10. The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify .right dosage . Record review of the facility's investigation dated 7/9/23 at 15:56 (3:56 PM), revealed Incident Description: Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) from previous hospice company notified resident's family whom notified staff that resident had four Fentanyl patches present while she was giving resident a bath. Two (2) of the patches…
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 before2022-10-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment and a building in good repair, as evidenced by, urine odors, unclean fall mat and resident room floors for four (4) of 65 residents reviewed. Resident #2, #17, #27, and #33. Findings include: Resident #17 An observation, on 10/25/22 at 11:10 AM, revealed there was no doorknob on the inside of Resident #17's room door. This observation revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 entered the room and when she tried to exit, was unable to open the door. LPN #1 revealed that she forgot that the resident did not have a doorknob. An observation, on 10/25/22 at 11:42 AM, revealed Resident #17 knocking on her room door from the inside. This observation revealed the Director of Nurses (DON) walking past Resident #17's room door and heard the knocking, opened the door, and realized that Resident #17 could not open the door to get out. This observation revealed the DON…
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 · D2022-10-28 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed provide access to the call light for one (1) of 64 residents observed Resident #2 Findings include: Review of the policy titled, Answering the Call Light, revised March 2021, revealed, Purpose . The purpose of this procedure is to ensure timely responses to the resident's requests and needs. 5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. An observation and interview on 10/25/22 at 10:58 PM, with Resident #2 revealed he did not have a call light and he could not call for help. Resident #2's call light was observed to be caught under the base board that was lifted and loose from the floor and was laying on the floor under the dresser next to resident's bed. An observation on 10/25/22 at 03:56 PM, revealed that Resident #2's call light was still observed to be stuck under the baseboard on the floor behind his dresser. An observation on 10/26/22 at 08:45 AM, revealed Resident #2's call light was still on…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NEXION HEALTH — 51 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 50 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 50; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEXION HEALTH OF OHI INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/29/2018 |
| NEXION HEALTH LEASING, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/29/2018 |
| BOLT, BRETTON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/29/2018 |
| KIRLEY, FRANCIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/29/2018 |
| MATTHEWS, WANDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| HERDRICH, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/29/2018 |
| LEE, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/29/2018 |
| RINER, MEERA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/29/2018 |
| NEXION HEALTH, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/29/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $426K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 255228. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.