The Windsor Place
81 Windsor Boulevard, Columbus, MS 39702 · For profit - Corporation · 140 certified beds · (662) 241-5518 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2023
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 4 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (26) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,839 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-09)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 32.0% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.2% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.7% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.6% | 23.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 6.3% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.2% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.3% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 2.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.7% | 84.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.9% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.1% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.21 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.42 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.5% 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 220 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.0% 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 153 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 59% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 56.5%CMS range 49.7–64.7 | 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 | 8.8%CMS range 6.7–11.5 | 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 | 64.0% | 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 | 56.9% | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 98.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 4.5–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 140 beds and averages 126.0 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 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 3.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.78 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
26 citations, most serious first. The 14 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-09 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan related to skin integrity concerns for a resident with excoriation to the buttocks. The resident developed a pressure ulcer within four days of admission to the facility. This was for one (1) of 28 care plans reviewed. Resident #39. Cross reference: F686 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy, revealed, on admission a care plan must be completed. A review of the Baseline Care Plan dated 8/23/24 for Resident #39 revealed Skin risk: current skin integrity issues checked.Specific skin integrity issue: Excoriation to buttock Physician orders: see Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR). A record review of the Wound Assessment Report dated 8/23/24, the day of admission, revealed Resident #39 was assessed to have excoriation to the buttocks area, with a new treatment order for Calmoseptine for excoriation to the buttocks. On 10/8/24 at 2:05 PM, in a record review of the Order Summary Report for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-09 · 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 observation, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent new ulcers from developing for (1) one of five (5) residents with wounds reviewed. Resident #39 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Overview of Skin and Wound Care Management, revealed, the facility staff strives to prevent/patient skin impairment. The Interdisciplinary team works with the resident and family to identify and implement interventions to prevent and treat potential skin integrity issues.Components of the skin care and wound management program include, but are not limited to, the following: 2.) Implementation of prevention strategies to minimize the potential for developing pressure ulcers and skin integrity issues. An interview with Resident # 39 on 10/07/24 at 11:24 AM, revealed she had a pressure sore on her lower buttocks that she got while in the facility. A record review of the Wound Assessment Report dated 8/23/24 revealed Resident #39 was assessed to have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · H2021-10-28 · 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 Amendment 1/25/22 Upon secondary review with CMS Regional Office staff and State Quality Assurance, the State Survey Agency (SSA) determined that the scope and severity for F657 has been elevated to an H due to the pattern of numerous falls that occurred. Based on record review, staff and family interview and facility policy review the facility failed to revise a fall care plan for Resident #111 after multiple falls that occurred for 1 of 5 falls reviewed. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Care Plan Policy with revision date 4-2019 revealed Policy It is the policy of this facility that an individualized, interdisciplinary care plan will be developed and maintained for each resident in the facility. Procedure: It is the responsibility of each nurse to update care plans. When an order is written or an incident occurs, it is the responsibility of the nurse taking the order, or the RN desk nurse documenting the incident to: #7 Stop and update the care plan immediately . If a resident has…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Hcited before2021-10-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Amendment 1/25/22 Upon secondary review with CMS Regional Office staff and State Quality Assurance, the State Survey Agency (SSA) determined that the scope and severity for F689 has been elevated to an H due to the pattern of numerous falls that occurred. Based on observation, staff and family interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide increased supervision for a resident who had sustained ten (10) falls with two (2) resulting in major injuries that included a Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and a fractured hip from 8/31/21 to 10/26/21 for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for falls, Resident #111. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Policy, with a revision date of 04-01 revealed Policy: It is the policy of this facility that each resident will be assessed upon admission, re-admission, quarterly, and annually or with a significant change for their fall risk potential. Procedure: .2 incorporate individualized measures and interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-09 · 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 label and date open items in the pantry, refrigerator, and freezer for one (1) of two (2) kitchen tours during the survey. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Storage undated, revealed under, Policy . Foods will be stored, at appropriate temperatures and by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross contamination . 14. Refrigerated food storage . f. All foods should be covered, labeled and dated. Also revealed under, 15. Frozen Foods: c. All foods should be covered, labeled and dated. All foods will be checked to assure that foods will be consumed by their safe use by dates or discarded. During initial tour of the kitchen on 10/7/24 at 11:20 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM) #1, an observation of the walk-in refrigerator revealed, a 5-pound (lb.) clear bag of shredded mozzarella cheese that had been opened and had one-fourth (1/4) of the bag remaining, which was unlabeled and undated. Also revealed a 5 lb. container of low-fat cottage cheese that was opened 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 · E2024-10-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain an account of all controlled medications and provide evidence of periodic reconciliation for two (2) of five (5) medication carts reviewed during medication pass. 100 hall and 200 hall. Findings include: Record Review of the facility policy titled, Pharmacy Delivery, Revised 9/4/15, revealed the policy read, The dispensing pharmacy will transport medication to the facility in a manner that prevents contamination, degradation, and diversion of medications. Review of Resident #80's Physician orders dated 08/01/2024 revealed Hydrocodone/APAP(acetaminophen) 10-325 MG(milligrams), Give 1/2 TABLET by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. The label on the medication card was not changed to reflect the new order. Observation of Resident #80's Controlled Substance Record during medication pass on 10/09/24 at 8:10 AM revealed instructions for Hydrocodone/APAP 10-325 MG, Give 1 TABLET by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. On 09/25/2024, 09/26/2024, 09/28/2024, 09/29/2024, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-09 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a wheelchair in good repair for one (1) of 86 residents requiring a wheelchair for mobility. Resident #51 Findings include: The facility provided a statement on letter head that read, The Proper Name of facility does not, currently, have a formal written policy regarding resident equipment being in good condition. Any issues of resident equipment not being in good condition or malfunctioning are to be reported to maintenance upon discovery. An observation on 10/7/24 at 12:05 PM, revealed Resident #51 sitting in his wheelchair with arm rests on the wheelchair that were torn and tattered with sharp plastic edges and the yellow foam visible. An observation on 10/8/24 at 11:01 AM, revealed Resident #51 lying in bed. His wheelchair was in the room, with the arm rest in disrepair. The right arm rest had the yellow foam torn away, and the black hard plastic was exposed, which had jagged edges. The left arm rest had the black vinyl torn, and the yellow foam was exposed. An interview with Licensed…
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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a care plan for shaving a dependent resident for one (1) of 25 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #80 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy dated 11/21, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that an individualized, interdisciplinary care plan will be developed and maintained for each resident in the facility. If the resident has a working care plan, you may use this and update it as indicated. Record review of Resident #80's Care Plan date initiated 9/4/24 revealed, the resident has an ADL, self-care performance deficit related to congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus which includes an intervention for bathing/showering. On 10/07/24 at 12:30 PM, during an observation and interview Resident #80 stated he wanted to be shaved and felt that the staff would do this today since it was shower day. He stated he was unsure when he was last shaved and told his family that if they would bring him a razor, he…
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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to shave a resident that was dependent on staff for care for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Resident #80 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living Policy, undated, revealed, It is the policy of the facility to encourage resident choice and participation in activities of daily living (ADL) and provide oversight cuing and assistance as necessary. ADL's included bathing, dressing, grooming, hygiene, toileting, and eating. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) will review the resident care card for information on individual care needs and preferences. CNA will provide needed oversight, cuing or assistance to resident. CNA will report any changes in ability or refusals to the nurse. During an observation and interview on 10/07/24 at 12:30 PM, Resident #80 stated he wanted to be shaved and felt that the staff would do this today since it was shower day. He stated he was unsure when he was…
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 before2024-10-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the residents had a environment free of potential hazards as evidenced by cleaning chemicals not being securely locked in a janitors storage closet for two (2) of five (5) units in the building. 400 Hall and Dementia Unit. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility,on facility letterhead revealed the facility does not currently have a formal written policy specific to resident accident prevention or monitoring. An observation on 10/7/24 at 11:20 AM on the Dementia Unit revealed a door with a sign that read Janitor's Closet was unlocked and held three full bottles of disinfectant. An interview and observation on 10/7/24 at 11:25 AM with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 confirmed the Janitors Closet has a coded lock that was broke and the room was unlocked. She confirmed there were three full bottles of liquid disinfectant in the closet. She stated that she had not told maintenance and is not sure if they know. She revealed that the closet with the cleaning…
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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an informed consent was obtained for the application of bed rails for one (1) of 25 sampled residents. Resident #30 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Side Rails Policy with a revision date of 10/19 revealed under, Policy: it is the policy of this facility to keep residents as safe as possible while they are in the bed, as well as enable them to be as active in their care physically as they are able. An observation of Resident #30 on 10/7/24 at 4:05 PM revealed he was lying in bed. The left side of the bed was against the wall, and one-half (1/2) side rails were raised on both sides of the bed. Record review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #30 revealed an order dated, 10/27/20, 1/2 (one half) siderails up x (times) 2 (two) when in bed for increased bed mobility & (and) independence. An interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse on 10/9/24 at 8:20 AM revealed bed rail assessments were completed on admission and quarterly. She revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed 1) to ensure a medication order, medication administration record, and narcotic record label were all labeled correctly for one (1) of five (5) medication carts reviewed during medication pass, (100 hall medication cart) and; 2) the facility failed to securely store medications when two medication capsules were found sitting in a clear medication cup in a resident's room for 1 of 124 residents observed on initial tour. (Resident #28). Findings include: 100 Hall Medication Cart Review of the facility policy, Narcotic Medication Accountability updated 1/02, revealed 3. As narcotic medication is used/wasted, the nurse responsible should document the usage and any wastage on the accountability record. Observation of Resident #80's Controlled Substance Record revealed instructions for Hydrocodone/APAP(acetaminophen) 10-325 MG (milligrams), Give 1 TABLET by mouth every 4 (four) hours as needed for pain. Review of Resident #80's Physician orders dated 08/01/2024 revealed Hydrocodone/APAP 10-325 MG, Give 1/2…
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 before2024-10-09 · 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 ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were initiated for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for EBP. Resident #370 Findings include: Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy, dated 04/2024, revealed, Purpose: Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refer to infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) by wearing gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities. The use of EBP does not restrict room placement or out of room activities. 4. High-contact resident care activities include: g. Device care or use: central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes, tracheostomy/ventilator tubes On 10/08/24 at 10:40 AM, observation revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 performed hand hygiene and used a barrier on overbed table for supplies. Resident #370's RN #1 accessed the Peripheral Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line using standard precautions. EBP was not done during the administration of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff and Resident Representative (RR) interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a significant change in a resident's physical status for one (1) of three (3) residents samples. Resident #1 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Change in Resident's Medical Status Policy, with revision date of 4/19, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to notify the resident's physician in any of the following circumstances: . 2. A significant change in resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e. [for example], deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening or clinical complications). During a phone interview with Resident #1's RR on 5/16/24 at 9:30 AM, the RR reported the resident had a decrease in blood pressure and had a urinary tract infection. The RR stated she did not feel like the physician was notified regarding these issues. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 5/16/24 at 12:20 PM, revealed Resident #1 had a urine culture…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 12 citations
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-27 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to resolve a grievance in a timely manner for four of five residents in Resident Council. Resident # 14, Resident #64, Resident #96, and Resident #101. Findings Include: Record review of the Facility's Grievance Policy dated February 8, 2023, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of (facility name) to investigate all concerns/grievances and provide the results of the investigation to the party filing the concern/grievance .Standard: .The facility will make prompt efforts to resolve all grievances .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: Process 5. All staff involved in a grievance investigation shall take steps to preserve the confidentiality of files and records relating to grievances and share only with those who have a need to know. 6. The Grievance Official or designee shall keep the resident appropriately apprised of progress towards resolution of the grievances. During interviews in the Resident…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to update Advance Directives for code status to ensure the residents' preferences were honored for three (3) of 32 residents in the initial pool. Resident #16, Resident #81 and Resident #99. Findings included: Record review of facility policy titled, Advance Directives Policy, dated 04/2021, revealed, Upon admission, the facility shall provide information regarding Advance Directives to the resident and/or the responsible party in accordance with the state law. The facility will observe the wishes of the resident and/or responsible party in regard to the Advance Directives. Advance Directives will be updated annually and/or as needed pending a change in resident condition to ensure that is valid and current. An interview on 7/25/23 at 4:00 PM, with Social Service Assistant #2 revealed Resident #16, Resident #81, and Resident #99 did not have an Advance Directive in place and on the medical record. She stated these residents…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse for one (1) of 32 residents reviewed. Resident #84. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and the Vulnerable Adults Act Policy with a revision date of 2/6/23 revealed, It is the policy of this facility that residents and patients are to be treated with dignity and respect at all times under any circumstance. Mistreatment in the form of verbal or physical abuse of any nature will not be tolerated . Record review of the Record of Concern dated 5/18/23 revealed resident #84's daughter called the facility and spoke with the Social Worker (SW) on 5/18/2023 at 1:53 PM to report an incident that occurred on 5/17/2023 around 8/8:30 PM. The residents' daughter stated that Resident # 84 had pushed her call light to be changed. The resident waited for a while, and no one ever responded to her call light. The resident…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the appropriate state agencies for one (1) of 32 residents reviewed. Resident #84 Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and the Vulnerable Adults Act Policy with a revision date of 2/6/23 revealed, It is the policy of this facility that residents and patients are to be treated with dignity and respect at all times under any circumstance. Mistreatment in the form of verbal or physical abuse of any nature will not be tolerated. Also revealed under, Procedure: . b. Who is responsible for reporting abuse? i. Any care facility employee, or health care professional, working in connection with the facility who has knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that a patient or resident of a care facility has been the victim of abuse, exploitation, or neglect. The employee must immediately report all alleged violations to their…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a through investigation of alleged abuse for one (1) of 32 residents in initial pool. Resident #84. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Abuse of a Resident Policy dated 3/6/15, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to strictly prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or exploitation of all residents .All allegations reported to the facility will be thoroughly investigated and handled in accordance with guidelines in this policy .6. Investigation-It is the policy of this facility to investigate, and report alleged incidents of abuse .The investigation will be completed by, but not limited to, the key staff responsible for that department and the Administrator . Record review of the Record of Concern dated 5/18/23 revealed Resident #84's daughter called the facility and spoke with the Social Worker (SW) on 5/18/2023 at 1:53 PM to report an incident that occurred on 5/17/2023 around 8/8:30 PM. The residents' daughter stated that Resident # 84 had…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain adequate staffing to assist residents in getting the care needed for seven (7) of 109 residents upon initial tour. Resident # 14, #64, #84, #87, #96, #98, and #101. Findings include: The facility provided documentation on letterhead dated July 27, 2023, The Windsor Place does not currently have a written general policy as related to staffing. Resident #14 During the resident council meeting on 07/25/23 at 2:30 PM, Resident #14 revealed that they were sometimes late on getting her showers and she sometimes had to wait awhile when she pushed her call light because of not having enough people to work the halls. Record review of Resident #14's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 07/06/23 under Section C documented her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15 which indicated resident was cognitively intact. Resident #64 On 7/25/23 at 2:30 PM, during…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and pharmacist interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident on an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication had a stop date for one (1) of six (6) medication reviews. Resident #17 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Policy and Procedure revealed under, Standards: 1. The facility will make every effort to comply with state and federal regulations related to the use of psychopharmacological medications in the long-term care facility to include regular review for continued need, appropriate dosage, side effects, risk and /or benefits. Revealed under, Physician/NP/mental health NP (When available to a facility) . 3. Orders for PRN psychotropic medications will be time limited (i.e., times 2 weeks) and only for specific clearly documented circumstances. Also revealed under, Consultant pharmacist: 1. Monitors psychotropic drug use in the facility to ensure that medications are not used in excessive doses or for…
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 before2023-07-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent the likelihood of the spread of infection as evidenced by staff not cleaning and disinfecting a multi-use resident device used to check vital signs between each resident use for one (1) of four (4) survey days. Findings include: A review of the facility's Clinical Equipment policy, undated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide clean equipment and help promote a sanitary environment. For all clinical equipment, the manufacturer's recommendations for cleaning or disinfecting are followed for type of clean or disinfectant and how often to clean or disinfect .Procedure: 1. Clinical equipment includes the following equipment .e. Vital signs equipment . On 07/25/23 at 2:55 PM, an observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 pushed a vital sign machine down the hall and entered room [ROOM NUMBER], CNA #2 then exited the room and did not clean the vital sign machine and immediately entered room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-10-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 interviews and facility policy reviews the facility failed to store food to prevent the likelihood of foodborne illness as evidenced by opened items with no open date and unlabeled food items in the refrigerator for one (1) of two (2) kitchen tours. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Food Storage Policy with a revised date of 4/23/19 under Food Storage Policy: Sufficient storage facilities will be provided to keep foods safe, wholesome, and appetizing. Food will be stored in an area that is clean, dry, and free from contaminates. Food will be stored, at appropriate temperatures and by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross contamination . Procedure: .13. leftover food will be stored in covered or wrapped carefully and securely. Each item will be clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated. Leftover food is used within 7 days or discarded as per the 2013 Federal Food Code . Check state regulations as state regulations as state regulations may allow shorter time frames for use of leftovers. On 10/25/21 at 1:40…
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 · D2021-10-28 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, resident interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Resident Representatative in writing of a transfer to the hospital for two (2) of four(4) residents reviewed. Resident # 56 and Resident # 111. Findings include: Record review of the facility Policy and Procedure titled Notice of Facility Initiated Emergency Transfer dated 10/28/21 revealed upon a facility initiated emergency transfer, it is the policy to provide transfer notice as soon as practicable to resident and resident representative to include the reason for the transfer, the effective date of the transfer, and location to which the resident is transferred. On 10/25/21 at 02:11 PM, an interview with Resident # 56 revealed she had one recent hospital stay because she was having breathing problems. On 10/26/21 at 02:10 PM, an interview with Social Services (SS) #2 revealed the Bed Hold Form was being sent to families and a call is made to inform families of a resident being transferred to the hospital, but no…
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 · D2021-10-28 · 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 record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a discharge assessment for the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one ( 1) of two (2) residents identified for resident assessments. Resident 1. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, MDS 3.0 Completion revealed .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . #2 .f. Discharge Assesssment- .completed using the discharge date as the Assessment Reference Date (ARD). Must be completed within 14 days of the discharge date /ARD. On 10/28/21 at 3:50 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 revealed that Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 5/17/21. LPN #3 confirmed that Resident #1 did not have a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment. On 10/28/21 at 3:55 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed that Resident #1 did not have a discharge MDS assessment, and it was an oversight on her part. On 10/28/21 at 4:04 PM, an interview with the Administrator…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-28 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record reviews and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain the appropriate staff at the quarterly Quality Assurance (QA) meetings for two( 2) of four(4) quarterly meetings reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance/Assessment and Performance Improvement Plan, dated 01/29/20, stated, The QA committee consists of the Director of Nursing/Designee (DON), the Medical Director, Administrator, Dietary Manager, Social Services, Quality Assurance Nurse, plus 2 (two) non-licensed staff. Record review of the QA sign in sheets revealed on 10/28/21 at 11:30AM, the QA sign-in sheets were dated from October 2020 through July 2021. October 2020 QA sign in sheet stated, No QAPI meeting held. The January 27, 2021 QA sign in sheet did not have the Medical Director in attendance and stated, Elected to not attend meeting. The July 28, 2021 sign-in sheet revealed that the Medical Director was not in attendance for the QA meeting. Interview on 10/28/21 at 1:45PM, with the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed that the facility…
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
$10,839 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $5,419 — penalty dated 2024-10-09
- $5,420 — penalty dated 2024-10-09
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WINDSOR PLACE NURSING CENTER INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/08/2025 |
| MASCARENAS, SANDRA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 12% | since 10/13/2003 |
| PHILLIPS, GREGORY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 12% | since 10/13/2003 |
| PHILLIPS, HELEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 12% | since 10/13/2003 |
| PHILLIPS, KENNETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 12% | since 10/13/2003 |
| PHILLIPS, OLIVER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 52% | since 10/13/2003 |
| FULCHER, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2009 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 255257. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-09, 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.