Jones Co Rest Home
683 County Home Road, Ellisville, MS 39437 · Government - City/county · 122 certified beds · (601) 477-3334 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $25,953 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-27)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 24.6% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.4% | 1.6% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.3% | 19.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.9% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.9% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 2.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.8% | 84.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.7% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.69 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.16 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
48.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 151 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.9% 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 69 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 | 48.2%CMS range 40.5–55.6 | 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 | 14.4%CMS range 10.8–18.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 60.9% | 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 | 60.9% | 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 | 49.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.9% | 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 | 98.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.1% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 5.1–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 122 beds and averages 116.9 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.56 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.62 on weekdays — 29% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.23 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-05-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, observation, record review, facility investigation review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1 and Resident #2 from eloping from the facility on 5/18/26 at 5:41 PM. The facility staff did not know that Resident #1 and Resident #2 were out of the facility on the facility grounds for 11 minutes. This concern was identified for two (2) of eight (8) residents reviewed for diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia (Resident #1 and Resident #2). The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision resulted in Resident #1 and Resident #2 leaving the facility unsupervised, placing these residents and other residents with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia at risk for elopement and the likelihood of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) that began on 5/18/26 when Resident #1 and Resident #2 exited from the facility unattended and unsupervised. 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-20 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan and individualized interventions, as evidenced by not addressing ongoing behavioral symptoms and providing individualized comfort care interventions, despite a known history of psychotic and aggressive behaviors, which resulted in Resident #10 having frequent behavioral episodes, refusal of medications and food, and frequent combative interactions with staff.for one (1) of twenty-three (23) residents reviewed for care planning. Resident #10 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessments), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, with a reviewed date of 01/24/24, revealed, . It is the purpose of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Discussion: . 6. The care plan will be updated on an ongoing basis with significant changes in interventions . A record review of Resident #10's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-20 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the ongoing provision of behavioral health services for a cognitively impaired resident with severe, escalating behaviors following discharge from a behavioral health unit and despite continued aggression, delusions, and medication refusal, the facility discontinued behavioral health services without a documented rationale, contributing to ongoing physical aggression toward staff and others for one (1) of 23 sampled residents. Resident #10 Findings include: On 03/17/25 at 1:16 PM, during an observation and interview, Resident #10 pleasantly confused, verbalizing that she needed to go home. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 10/01/21 with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Unspecified, Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Conditions, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions, and Other Symptoms and Sign Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor resident food dislikes by placing food items on meal trays that were identified as dislikes for one (1) of four (4) days of observation. Resident #58. Findings included: A review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy, revised 12/4/2016, revealed, . Responsibilities .The facility must support the resident in the exercise of his or her rights . Procedure . 6. Resident Rights. The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination . A review of the facility's booklet titled A Matter of Rights: A Guide to Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Resident with a copyright date of 2017 revealed, . Freedom of Choice - You are entitled to make decisions, whenever possible, for yourself based on your interests and preferences . On 03/17/2025 at 12:27 PM, during an interview and observation, Resident #58 was observed eating lunch independently. The lunch tray included lasagna and mashed potatoes with gravy. Resident #58 stated that she has told kitchen staff repeatedly…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · 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
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide a reason for a resident transfer for one (1) of 23 residents sampled. Resident #5 Findings Include: A review of the facility's Notice of Transfer or Discharge dated 09/02/24 revealed there was no explanation for the resident's discharge to the hospital. A review of the facility's Notice of Transfer or Discharge dated 12/14/24 revealed there was no explanation for the resident's discharge to the hospital. A record review of the facility's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/20/16 with diagnoses including Heart Failure. On 3/20/25 at 8:05 AM, an interview with the Social Services Director revealed the Charge Nurse is responsible for filling in the Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge form and the Business Office Coordinator mails the form to the Resident Representative (RR). On 03/20/25 at 9:50 AM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 Charge Nurse revealed she has never filled in the Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge at the time a resident is sent to the hospital. RN #1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment after a resident experienced two (2) or more declines in activities of daily living and an increase in behavioral symptoms for one (1) of twenty-three (23) sampled residents. Resident #10. Findings included: A review of the facility's MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessments), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, revised 11/14/2023, . It is the purpose of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Discussion: 1. The staff completing each portion of the MDS is responsible for ensuring that documentation is found in the medical record to support the coding they perform . A review of the Long Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual Version 1.19.1 dated October 2024 revealed, . A 'significant change' is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0646 — isolatedNotify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority following a significant change in status for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II. Resident #10 Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled PASRR Screening with a review date of 11/19/2023 revealed, . This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 7. Any Level II resident who experiences a significant change in status will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for additional review. 8. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred…
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 before2023-10-26 · 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 interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to food items not dated with a use-by date, food items not discarded by the use-by date, spoiled foods not discarded, food items without an identifying label, food items improperly stored, and food items opened and not sealed for one (1) of three (3) kitchen observations and had the potential to affect all residents who receive food items from the kitchen. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy, Food and Supply Storage, revised 1/22, revealed, . All food .shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination .Procedures .Cover, label and date unused portions and open packages .Discard food past the use-by or expiration date .Dry Storage .Foods that must be opened must be store in .approved containers that have tight-fitting lids .Hang scoop. Scoops may be stored in bins on a scoop holder .Refrigerated Stored .sort produce daily to remove spoiled pieces . On 10/23/23 at 11:45 AM, during an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-26 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor 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
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure grievances related to dietary services were resolved for ten (10) of 24 sampled residents. (Resident #1, #18, #22, #42, #58, #61, #67, #94, #96 and #104) Findings include: Review of the facility's, Grievance Policy revised 06/23/23 revealed, .To ensure the resident, our resident representatives right, to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without the fear of discrimination or reprisal .Responsibilities .The facility will review grievances in a timely manner and must make prompt efforts to resolve grievances .Procedure .4. Grievances may be voiced orally to the department manager, to the Grievance Official, during resident council .8. Any immediate action needed to prevent further violations of any residents' rights will be taken .10. The grievance official will take steps to resolve the grievance and record information about the grievance and those actions on the grievance form. 11. Steps to resolve 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 · Ecited before2023-10-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff washed or sanitized hands during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) site care for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed with PEG tubes. Resident # 38 Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Prevention and Control Program Policy, revised 8/22/2019, revealed, Purpose: To establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections . During PEG site care, on 10/24/23 at 10:20 AM, for Resident # 38, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 did not wash or sanitize her hands or change her gloves after removing the soiled dressing from the PEG site. She used the same gloves to clean the site. LPN #1 also did not wash or sanitize her hands before she donned a clean pair of gloves and applied the treatment to the PEG site. On 10/25/23 at 02:38 PM, in an interview with LPN #1, she confirmed…
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 before2023-10-26 · 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
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident and the Resident's Representative (RR), for a resident transferred to the hospital for one (1) of two (2) resident records reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident #65 Findings include: Record Review of the facility's policy, Resident Transfer and Discharge Policy, with a revision date of 3/11/22, revealed, . 7. Emergency Transfers/Discharges initiated by the facility for medical reasons e. Complete and send the following forms at the time of transfer: i. Notice of Bed Hold for the resident representative ii. Notice of transfer for the resident representative . At 12:35 PM on 10/23/23, in an interview with Resident #65, she revealed she had been admitted to the hospital several times due to tremors and pneumonia. She stated she was not given anything in writing from the facility at the time of her transfers to the hospital. A record review of the Physician Order Sheet, for Resident #65, revealed there was an order dated 9/18/23, to send 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 · D2023-10-26 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide the Resident and the Resident Representative (RR) with written notification of the bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident #65 Findings include: Record Review of the facility's policy, Notice of Bed Hold and Return Policy, with a revision date of 1/9/20, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold policies prior to and upon transferring a resident to the hospital . On 10/23/23 at 12:35 PM, in an interview with Resident #65, she revealed she had been admitted to the local hospital several times due to tremors and pneumonia. She stated at the time of her hospitalizations, she had not received anything in writing from the facility regarding their bed hold policy. A record review of the Physician Order Sheet, for Resident #65, revealed there an order dated 9/18/23, to send the resident to the ER (Emergency…
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 before2021-03-05 · 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 interviews, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to properly sanitize the food processors for pureed diets which could affect 11 of 11 residents receiving puree diets for one (1)of three (3) days survey. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dietary Employee Hygiene and Personal Cleanliness, revealed, Purpose: To maintain a high level of sanitation during all activities in the food service area .Test solutions with test strips regularly to ensure that they are maintaining the proper strength of sanitizer for food contact surfaces .Concentration - not using enough sanitizing agent will result in an inadequate reduction of microorganisms. On 03/03/21, 11:02 AM, during an Observation of the kitchen three compartment sink revealed a dietary staff member #1 was washing a food processor. Dietary staff member #1 washed the food processor in the soapy water, rinsed it in the second sink and placed the food processor in the third sink of clear water. The dietary member took the food processor out of the water and was walking away when…
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 · D2021-03-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (5%) for one of six (6) medication administration observations. The medication error rate was seven (7) percent. Resident #66. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration and Charting of Medications Policy, dated April 2019, revealed: It is the policy of this facility to administer medications per physician's order. All medications shall be administered and charted under the supervision of licensed personnel in accordance with laws and regulations governing such acts. Administer the medications and ensure that the resident swallows medications administered via oral route. On 03/03/21, at 08:45 AM, upon entrance into Resident # 66's room, with LPN #2, a medication cup was observed on the bedside table with two (2) pills in the cup. On 03/03/21, at 8:50 AM, interview with LPN #2 revealed the medication looks like her evening medication was not given on 3/2/21 by the medication nurse. LPN #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 before2021-03-05 · 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 Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to prevent the possible spread of infection as evidenced by the wound care nurse touching multiple surfaces with contaminated gloves for one (1) of four (4) wound care observations. Resident #74. Findings Include: The facility's policy, Clean Dressing Change, reviewed date 3/11/2020 revealed, To provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and/or cross-contamination. On 03/04/21, at 08:54 AM, an observation of wound care being done by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1/Wound Care Nurse. LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse applied clean gloves and closed the privacy curtain with right gloved hands. She picked up the bed control, adjusted the bed, and removed Resident #74's wound dressing without changing gloves. A record review of Resident #74's Face Sheet revealed resident was admitted on [DATE], with a primary diagnosis of unspecified Dementia Disturbance. A record review of the Physician order,…
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.
- No harm found · B2023-10-26 · tag F0640 — patternEncode 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
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one (1) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Resident #78) Findings Include: Review of facility's, MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessment), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, revised 10/18/2019, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Record review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #78 on 6/5/23 with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Record review of the Progress Notes revealed a Discharge Summary note, dated 7/2/23 at 12:30 (PM), for Resident #78 for .1230 (12:30 PM) Coroner called to pronounce death . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #78 had a Death in Facility MDS with an ARD of 7/2/23 completed and signed on 7/3/23. Review of the MDS submission report revealed the Submission Date/Time was 10/25/23 at 16:24 (4:24 PM) and the Discharge MDS for Resident #78 that 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.
“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
$25,953 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $17,675 — penalty dated 2026-05-27
- $4,139 — penalty dated 2025-03-20
- $4,139 — penalty dated 2025-03-20
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STAINES, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/21/2024 |
| EAST, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/16/2025 |
| GIBBES, GREGG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/10/2010 |
| DYESS, STEPHANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/14/2024 |
| HASBARGEN, BRITTANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2014 |
| HICKS, JUDITH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2006 |
| BREWER, ELSA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2021 |
| GOINS, LEWIS | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2024 |
| JONES, VICTOR | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/19/2020 |
| LOWE, MICHAEL | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/19/2022 |
| SCOGGIN, JACK | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2019 |
| SIGGERS, ARTHUR | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/15/2020 |
| WALTERS, GEORGE | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 08/22/2023 |
| NORTON, MARK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2025 |
| WILLIAMS, TOBIE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Mississippi Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 255336. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-20, 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.