Holmes County Long Term Care Center - Durant
15481 Bowling Green Road, Durant, MS 39063 · For profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (662) 653-4106 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-13)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.2% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 1.4% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.1% | 19.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.3% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 11.7% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.4% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.3% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 59.1% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.4% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.89 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 7.02 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.6–17.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 12.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 9.7% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 3.5–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.60 | 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 80 beds and averages 71.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.61 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.49 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, facility policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement the care plan for a two (2) person assist with the use of a full body mechanical lift for all transfers of Resident #4. Resident #4 sustained a head injury and received medical treatment at the emergency room (ER) as a result of the misuse of the full body mechanical lift. Resident #4 was one (1) of four (4) sampled residents in the facility identified as dependent upon the full body mechanical lift with two (2) persons assistance for transfers. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 11/06/24 through 11/11/24, the State Agency (SA) determined the deficiency to be Past Non-Compliance. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans-Comprehensive, revised 10/2016 revealed, 2. The comprehensive care plan is based on a thorough assessment that includes . a. Incorporate identified problem areas: b. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems . f.…
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 · Gcited before2025-01-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, facility policy reviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent an injury of a resident by not following the established facility policies and procedures for the use of two (2) person assistance with a full body mechanical lift for all transfers. Resident #4 had to seek medical care at the emergency room (ER) for a laceration to her head which required closure with staples. Resident #4 was one (1) of four (4) sampled residents dependent upon full body mechanical lifts for all transfers. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 11/06/24 through 11/11/24, the State Agency (SA) determined the deficiency to be Past Non-Compliance. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Modified Lifting Policy for Zero Back Injury (ZBI) Program dated 1/24/22 revealed, I acknowledge that if I choose to use a lift without a second person to assist, fail to apply the sling correctly, and fail to use the correct lift specified on the residents care guide I will risk…
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 · D2024-06-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, resident representative interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was treated with dignity as evidenced by failure to cover unclothed residents that were visible from the hallway, and failure to provide a privacy bag for a catheter for three (3) of twenty-two sampled residents. Resident #5, Resident #55 and Resident #228. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Maintaining Privacy and Dignity for Residents with Foley Catheter Drainage Bags undated, revealed It is the policy of this facility to provide privacy and dignity to all residents that have a urinary drainage bag in use. The drainage bag will be maintained in a storage pouch to hide the contents and prevent embarrassment to the resident . Review of the facility policy titled Privacy/Dignity During Care with a revision date of 8/2015 revealed under, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide privacy and dignity to our residents while providing…
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 · D2024-06-27 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a residents call light was within reach for one (1) of 22 residents sampled. Resident #24 Findings Include Review of the facility policy titled, Call Light, Answering with no revision date revealed under, Key Procedural Points .#5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair, be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. An observation and interview on 06/25/24 at 8:15 AM, revealed Resident #24 was sitting on the side of the bed receiving Oxygen (O2) via (by) nasal cannula. The resident stood up and said she needed to go to the bathroom, with no shoes on and nasal cannula still attached, she attempted to take two steps and stated she needed help, but admitted she did not know where her call light was located. An observation revealed the resident's call light was out of the residents reach and behind the privacy curtain on her roommate's side of the room, lying in 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 · Dcited before2024-06-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) diabetic nail care and failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with ADL nail care for two (2) of the twenty-two sampled residents. Resident #63 and Resident #65 Findings include: A review of the facility's Care Plans-Comprehensive policy dated 10/2016 revealed, An individualized (person-centered) comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident A review of the facility's Following the Care Plan Policy undated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to follow a written and approved care plan for each resident. All employees will be trained upon hire and be required to follow the care plan . Resident #63 A record review of Resident #63's Comprehensive Care…
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 · D2024-06-27 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene as evidenced by long, jagged nails with a brown substance underneath the fingernails for two (2) of the twenty-two sampled residents. Resident # 63, and Resident #65 Findings included: Record review of facility policy titled, Fingernails/Toenails, Care of undated, revealed, The purposes of this policy is to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections . 6 .Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming. Resident #63 An observation and interview on 06/25/24 at 8:40 AM, 12:05 PM, and 2:15 PM, revealed Resident #63 sitting in his wheelchair, bilateral fingernails approximately one-half (1/2) inch long and jagged past the tip of his fingers, and a brown substance was under each nail. Resident #63 revealed, No one has offered to cut and clean my nails in a long time, I would like them cut. An observation on 06/26/24 at 8:25 AM, of Resident #63…
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 before2024-06-27 · 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 and staff interview the facility failed to prevent the possibility of an accident and hazards as evidenced by not properly securing and storing chemicals for one (1) of three (3) survey days. Findings Include: Review of the typed statement on facility letterhead revealed the facility did not have a policy on chemical cleaners in the whirlpool room. However, they are expected to be in a locked cabinet when not in use and this was signed by the Administrator. An observation and interview on 6/26/24 at 10:45 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed the shower room on the B-Hall had a coded lock on the door, but LPN #1 turned the door handle and walked in without using the keyed lock. Inside the shower room, the whirlpool tub was full of water with soap suds and there was an unlocked storage bin that held a can of bug spray, a spray bottle of bleach cleaner and two large bottles of disinfectant. LPN #1 confirmed that the door to the shower room should be locked and if a resident had accidentally come in here, they could have accessed or come in contact…
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 · D2024-06-27 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a controlled substance was signed out on a resident's narcotic administration log at the time of administration for one (1) of five (5) residents observed during medication pass (Resident #31) and during one (1) of two (2) narcotic log reconciliations. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Preparation and General Guidelines with a revision date of January 2018 revealed under, Policy: Medication included in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal, and recordkeeping in the facility, in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. Also revealed under, Procedures: . E. Accurate accountability of the inventory of all controlled drugs is maintained at all times. When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters the following information on the accountability record and the medication administration…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to submit a status change for a resident with a new mental illness diagnoses for one (1) of four (4) Pre-admission Screening and Record Reviews (PASARR) reviewed. Resident #37 Findings include: Record review of facility letterhead signed by the Director of Nursing (DON), undated, revealed, (Proper name of facility) does not have a policy for submitting a second PASR while in the facility. Record review of the Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Application for Long Term Care dated 12/4/2020, revealed the Resident #37 had Depression (major) and Depression (other) listed as medical conditions. The physician certified that this person is appropriate for Medicaid long term care services. Record review of Resident #37's Diagnosis Information revealed the resident had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder dated 12/4/2020 and a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe with Psychotic Symptoms dated 2/15/2023. An interview with Social Services…
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 · D2023-06-15 · 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 interviews, pharmacy consultant interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident on a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication had a stop date for one (1) of six (6) resident's medication reviewed. Resident #45 Findings include: The facility provided documentation on letterhead that read, (Proper Name of facility) does not have a policy for PRN psychotropic medications. Record review of Resident #45's Physician Orders Summary Report revealed an order dated 01/13/2023, Ativan oral tablet 1 MG (milligram) give 1 tablet by mouth every four (4) hours as needed for agitation An interview on 6/15/23 at 9:05 AM, with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 confirmed that Resident #45 did not have a stop date for his PRN Ativan, and she acknowledged that it should have one. She revealed that the resident has had this Ativan order since he was admitted into the facility on 1/13/2023. An interview on 6/15/23 at 9:20 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Resident #45 did not have a stop…
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 · D2021-08-05 · tag F0576 — isolatedEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
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 and record review the facility failed to ensure Saturday mail delivery to 1 out of 12 residents that voiced a concern during Resident council. FACILITY Resident Council Record review of the Mail Delivery Policy dated 2/2009 revealed under policy: It is the policy of this facility to deliver the Resident's mail timely. Under procedure: This mail will be delivered to the resident Monday thru Friday by the activity director. If the Resident receives mail on a Saturday, it will be delivered to the Resident by the week-end RN Unit Manager. Record review of the Resident's Rights policy with revised date of 8/16/16 revealed the center, through its Administrator, is responsible for establishing written policies that will safeguard the rights and responsibilities of medical assistance residents. The staff of the center is trained and involved in the implementation of these policies and procedures. The Administrator is responsible of adherence of the policies and procedures and 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 · D2021-08-05 · 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 FACILITY Dining Observation An observation on 8/3/21 at 2:45 PM of Certified Nursing Assistant #1 passing out snacks to the residents on hall B. Snacks were on a plastic dining tray. CNA #1 entered Resident #24's room with the snack tray. She allowed Resident #24 to reach and take a bag of chips off the tray. Resident #24 reached over three bags of chips and picked up the third bag. While reaching to get the third bag of chips, her left lower arm drug over the other 2 bags of chips. Then CNA #1 took a snack cake off the snack tray and opened it and gave it to Resident #1. CNA #1 left that Resident's room and continued into Resident room #B14 and then to Resident room #B17. CNA #1 offered the Resident's a snack, and they did want a snack and CNA #1 handed the snack to them. An interview on 8/3/21 at 3:00 PM with CNA #1 revealed she should not have allowed Resident #24 to get a snack off the tray because it can cause an infection. An interview on 08/05/21 at 08:00 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed CNA…
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
$8,278 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $4,139 — penalty dated 2025-01-13
- $4,139 — penalty dated 2025-01-13
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TREND CONSULTANTS — 15 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 4.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, per CMS)
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| WARNOCK, LORI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/27/2021 |
| KELLY, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 92% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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 255332. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-27, 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.