Landmark Of Collins
1315 South Fir Ave, Collins, MS 39428 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (601) 765-8262 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (68%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 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 improved from 2 to 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 | 14.7% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.8% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.7% | 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 | 5.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.4% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| 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 | 28.4% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.9% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.0% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.6% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.7% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.59 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.58 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
53.2% 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 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.3% 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 77 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 0.47 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 78% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 53.2%CMS range 44.7–63.4 | 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 | 12.8%CMS range 9.0–15.8 | 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 | 62.3% | 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 | 66.2% | 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 | 59.7% | 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 | 91.0% | 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 | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 4.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.7%CMS range 6.0–14.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.26 | 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 55.9 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.23 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to remove expired food items from the refrigerator by the manufacturer's expiration date, maintain the refrigerator in a clean condition free from spills, and store food according to manufacturer's instructions for one (1) of four (4) survey days.Findings include:A review of the facility's policy, Food Storage Labeling revised August 2024, revealed, .The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage procedures.Procedure.7. Recommended Food Storage Chart.c. Steps to use the chart.iii. Use the calendar to select the recommended date to discard.d. discard foods that are found to have exceeded their storage time.8. Rotation a. First In, First Out method is used to rotate food in all storage areas i. Identify the food item's use by date or expiration date .On 09/15/2025 at 10:18 AM, during the initial tour of the dietary department with the Dietary Manager (DM), a gallon of whole milk in cooler #3 was observed with a manufacturer's expiration date of 09/14/2025. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to handle residents' clean clothing in a manner that prevented the possible spread of infection for one (1) of four (4) days of survey.Findings include:On 9/15/25 at 2:50 PM, during an observation and interview with Laundry Worker (LW) #1, she was delivering clean clothes to residents' rooms while holding the clothes close to her body, so that the clothes touched her uniform during four (4) delivery stops. LW #1 stated she had been trained not to allow residents' clothing to touch her clothing, as this could spread germs and infection. She reported that staff were in-serviced monthly on infection control practices.On 9/18/25 at 9:33 AM, during an interview with the Infection Prevention (IP) Nurse, she acknowledged that LW #1 failed to handle the clean laundry in a manner that would prevent infection. The IP Nurse stated she provided monthly in-service training on infection control and expected staff to follow guidelines to keep clean clothing away from their uniforms.On 9/18/25 at 9:37 AM, during an interview with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by food items not dated and spoiled foods for two (2) of three (3) kitchen observations. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Food Service Operational Standards for Purchasing, Cooking and Storage, revised 9/12, revealed, .The facility stores .food under sanitary conditions to prevent the spread of food borne illness and to reduce those practices that result in food contamination and compromised food safety Procedure .3. Storage .f. Follow First In first Out (FIFO) . On 4/30/24 at 9:08 AM, an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) revealed the following: Refrigerator #1: One (1) unopened plastic bag of purple cabbage, one (1) unopened plastic bag of carrots strips, and six (6) unopened plastic wrapped heads of iceberg lettuce with no use-by or discard date. On 5/1/24 at 8:00 AM, an observation of a shelf located outside the pantry door, contained a plastic bin with 17…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 honor the resident's right for choices as evidenced by serving a meal that included a known dislike for one (1) of (14) sampled residents. (Resident #4) Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Dietary Services, revised 11/17, revealed, . Food likes, dislikes and eating habits are assessed by the Nursing and Dietary Departments. This information is recorded in the resident's Medical Record . During an observation and interview on 4/30/24 at 12:14 PM, Resident #4 was served spaghetti with meat sauce on her meal tray. Resident #4 stated that had told the staff and the Dietary Manager (DM) several times that she did not eat noodles or rice. The resident's meal consisted of spaghetti with meat sauce, lettuce and tomato salad, cornbread, and ice cream with tea and water. The resident ate her salad and did not eat any other items on the meal tray. Resident #4's sister brought her lunch from home. Record review of the Lunch meal tray ticket for Resident #4, dated 4/30/24, revealed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure physicians orders for laboratory tests were followed for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident # 9) Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Physician Orders, revised 9/23, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that all physician's orders will be implemented timely and carried out in a professional manner . Record review of the Physician's Orders, for the month of April 2024 revealed Resident #9 had Physician's Orders, dated 11/6/20 for a Vitamin D level yearly in November, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) yearly in November, and a Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP) every six (6) months in November and May. Resident #9 also had a Physician's Order, dated 9/22/22 for a Complete Blood Count (CBC) every 6 months in November and May. Record review of a Departmental Note, dated 11/21/23 at 5:13 AM, for Resident #9 revealed, resident refused to allow his labs to be drawn this morning . Record review of a Departmental Note, dated 12/12/23 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 · D2024-05-02 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 provide palatable meals for three (3) of 14 sampled residents reviewed. (Resident # 4, Resident #14, and Resident # 50) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Food Service, revised 8/00 revealed Purpose: To meet the nutritional needs of each resident. To provide a well-balanced, flavorful and varied food service program . Resident #4 On 04/30/24 at 12:14 PM, in an observation and interview, Resident #4 was eating lunch in the dining room. Resident #4 had refused to eat the spaghetti with meat sauce, corn bread and ice cream and had her sister to bring her lunch from home. The resident said the food was bland with no taste most of the time because the facility did not season the food. She stated she had complained to the nursing staff and the Dietary Manager (DM) several times. A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #4 on 3/19/24 with current medical diagnoses including Dysphagia and Anorexia. A record review of the admission Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection, as evidenced by failure to clean a glucometer device according to manufacturer's guidelines for one (1) of two (2) observations. (Resident #32) Findings include: Review of facility's policy, Blood Glucose Quality Control, revised 01/24, revealed, .Maintenance of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Always clean the meter after each use. Gently wipe and clean surface of the meter with a disinfectant wipe . Record review of the General Guidelines for Use for the Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipe, dated 2021, revealed, .4. Allow treated surface to remain wet for two (2) minutes. Let air dry . On 5/1/24 at 10:47 AM, during an observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 used a glucometer to perform an accucheck on Resident #32. After LPN #3 performed the accucheck, she returned to the medication cart, applied clean gloves, and obtained a Super Sani-cloth disposable wipe from the container. LPN #3 cleaned the glucometer for 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 · E2022-06-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed timely for one (1) resident, Resident #39, and revised for two (2) residents, Resident #39 and Resident #103, out of four (4) residents sampled for falls. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Care Plan Process with a revision date of 08/17 revealed, .The results of the assessment, which must accurately reflect the resident's status and needs, are to be used to develop, review, and revise each resident's comprehensive person-centered plan of care .Re-evaluates the resident's status at prescribed intervals (i.e. quarterly, annually, or if a significant change in status occurs) .Interventions are actions that should promote meeting the established goal . Review of the facility's policy Fall Prevention and Management Program with the latest revision date of 09/18 revealed, .will be used to develop interventions after each fall and for care plan revisions .Management…
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 · D2022-06-08 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to complete the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 38 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments, with the potential to affect 57 residents. Resident #3 A record review of the facility's policy MDS Process, with a latest revision date of 12/20, revealed, The Assessment Nurse/ Nurse Case Manager will set the Assessment Reference Date on an allowable date with input from the interdisciplinary team and communicate scheduled assessments to the interdisciplinary team. The RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual is the source document to be used for further MDS coding guidelines, time schedules and requirements . A record review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) RAI Version 3.0 Manual, dated October 2019, revealed, .The Annual assessment is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed on an annual basis (at least every 366 days) . A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #3 on 03/20/2014. A record review of Resident #3's last…
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 · D2022-06-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent the development of an avoidable pressure ulcer on a resident with an immobilization brace for one (1) of three (3) facility acquired pressure ulcers reviewed. Resident #30 Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Prevention and Treatment of Skin Issues with a latest review date of 8/21 revealed, Policy: It is the policy to properly identify and assess residents whose clinical conditions increase the risk for impaired skin integrity, and pressure ulcers; to implement preventative measures; and to provide appropriate treatment modalities for wounds according to industry standards of care .C. monitoring of skin integrity. The skin will be observed daily during care by the nursing assistants. If any skin concerns are noted, they are to be reported immediately to the designated nurse verbally and via the kiosk in electronic facilities . On 06/06/22 at 11:33 AM, the State Agency (SA) observed wound care for Resident #30 performed by the Director of Nursing (DON). The SA…
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 before2022-06-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard expired food items, ensure daily temperature logs for the freezer were completed, and failed to label and date refrigerated items for one (1) of four (4) kitchen observations. Findings Include: A record review of the facility's policy Food Storage Labeling, with a revision date of 05/18, revealed, Policy: The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage and labeling procedures Procedure: 1. Labeling . a. All temperature controlled foods and ready to eat foods that are prepared in the facility and held for longer than twenty-four hours will be labeled. Information included on the label: Name of the Food Date of storage .3. Rotation .b. Foods stored in storage units will be surveyed routinely to identify and discard foods that have passed its manufactured use-by date or expiration date . 4. Monitoring storage temperatures .b. Temperatures in food storage units are monitored…
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 THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELTON G BEEBE SR IRRV GRNDCHILDRENS TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| PATHWAY MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2014 |
| BEEBE, BOBBY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PROVIDENCE CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| REGIONAL SERVICES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| TRISTAR REHAB INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BEEBE, ELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| COLLINS, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2006 |
| GRIFFITH, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| MILES, RACHEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/07/2009 |
| QSST TR FOR FELICIA BEEBE STALLARD AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FOUR GENERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LINDA MAYNOR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| LOUISIANA EXTENDED CARE CENTERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| NUTRITION SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/31/2008 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2018 |
| QSST TR FOR ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| TRANS MED LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
17 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $734K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 255215. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.