Diversicare Of Eupora
156 E Walnut Ave, Eupora, MS 39744 · For profit - Corporation · 119 certified beds · (662) 258-8293 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 | 15.3% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.5% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.0% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.9% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.3% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 2.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.1% | 27.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.4% | 15.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.60 | 2.43 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 2.86 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.0% 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 95 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.9% 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 56 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 56.0%CMS range 45.2–66.8 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.0–14.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 58.9% | 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 | 53.6% | 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 | 48.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.0–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 119 beds and averages 107.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff followed professional standards of practice related to accurate and individualized documentation of as needed (PRN) pain medication administration for 13 of 25 residents reviewed on the B-hall medication cart. This deficient practice resulted in repetitive clustered documentation of PRN narcotic pain medications at identical times for multiple residents, which did not reflect individualized assessment or real-time documentation of care provided. Resident #9, #12, #22, #27, #38, #43, #44, #47, #61, #65, #68, #95 and unsampled Resident D. Findings Include:Record review of the facility policy tilted Medication Administration with a review date of 4/23 revealed under, Policy; Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so.Record review of the facility policy titled Purpose of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review, monthly pharmacy reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure its pharmacy services and drug regimen review process identified and addressed irregularities in as needed (PRN) opioid medication documentation for 13 of 25 residents on medication cart B. Resident #9, #12, #22, #27, #38, #43, #44, #47, #61, #65, #68, #95 and unsampled Resident D. Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Drug Regimen Review reviewed 4/23, revealed under, Policy: Drug Regimen Review consists of a review and analysis of prescribed medication therapy and medication use, including nursing documentation, medication ordering, and administration. The Consultant Pharmacist reviews the medication regimen and medical record of each resident at least monthly. Recommendations and identified irregularities are reported in writing to the Director of Nursing, the Attending Physician, and the Medical Director.Record reviews of the January and February 2026 Medication Administration Record (MARs) revealed 13 residents had active physician orders…
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 before2026-02-26 · 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 resident, resident representative, and staff interviews, along with facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect by providing timely toileting assistance and honoring residents right for two (2) of 25 sampled residents reviewed. Resident #5 and Resident #18. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights & Quality of Life Policy, with an effective date of March 13, 2020, revealed, It is the policy of 'Proper name of facility' that all patients and residents have the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to people and services inside and outside the center. Resident #5 During an interview on 2/23/2026 at 11:41 AM, Resident #5 revealed that at approximately 11:00 PM, she activated her call light requesting assistance to the bathroom, at which time Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 responded and stated, Didn't someone come in here earlier and take you to the bathroom? The resident stated…
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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean environment as evidenced by overbed tables with a thick black substance on the metal base for three (3) of sixty-three resident rooms observed. (room [ROOM NUMBER], #18, and #28) Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights & Quality of Life Policy, with an effective date of March 13, 2020, revealed, It is the policy of 'Proper name of facility' that all patients and residents have the right to a dignified existence .To receive services in a center environment that is safe, clean, and comfortable . On 2/23/2026, between 3:25 PM and 4:00 PM, observations on B Wing revealed that Rooms #16, #18, and #28 contained overbed tables with a thick black substance scattered across the metal bases. The condition was readily observable upon entering the residents' rooms.On 2/24/2026 at 1:30 PM, an observation and interview revealed the overbed table bases in Rooms #16, #18, and #28 remained…
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 before2026-02-26 · 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 staff and family interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for incontinent care received timely assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for one (1) of 25 sampled residents. Resident #18Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) dated 2025 revealed under, Policy: Ensure ADLs are provided in accordance with accepted standards of practice, the care plan, and reasonable accommodation of the resident's choices and preferences .An interview with a family member on 2/24/26 at 2:10 PM revealed she entered the facility around 1:05 PM to visit Resident #18, whose call light was sounding because she was wet and needed to be changed. The family member stated that when second shift (2PM-10PM) Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAS) came in, Resident #18 was extremely soiled to the extent that the brief was saturated, appeared brown in color, and the bed sheets were wet. She further…
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 before2026-02-26 · 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 observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from accident hazards related to unsafe possession and storage of smoking materials for three (3) of nineteen residents identified as smokers. (Resident #88, Unsampled Residents A, and B)Findings Include:Review of the Facility policy titled Safe Tobacco Use with a revision date of November 3, 2022, revealed under, Purpose: 1. To maximize our ability to provide a safe environment for all residents/patients who smoke, while taking into account non-smoking residents. 4. Staff members will monitor or obtain fire igniting materials (matches/lighters) for the benefit of smokers at the nurses' station or other designated location .On 2/23/2026 at 11:30 AM, an observation revealed a gray box of cigarettes lying on the chest of drawers near the television in Resident #88's room.On 2/24/2026 at 9:45 AM, an observation and interview revealed two (2) boxes of cigarettes and a red lighter lying on Resident #88's bedside table, and one (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 · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication cart was secured to prevent unauthorized access for one (1) of four (4) medication carts observed (B Wing). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Proper Name, Inc. Policies and Procedures, revised 04/22, stated, It is the responsibility of the facility to keep the medication cart locked and secure at all times when not in use . During an observation on 2/24/26 at 2:35 PM, the medication cart on B Wing was observed unlocked and unattended. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 stated she got busy and forgot to lock her cart before sitting down to chart. She stated the cart should always be secured for the safety of the residents. On 2/25/26 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON), who stated medication carts should never be left unlocked when not in use. She stated medication carts are to be locked at all times when not in use for the safety of the residents.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to implement infection prevention and control practices to prevent the transmission of infections. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure oxygen delivery devices were stored in a sanitary manner when not in use for one (1) of four (4) days of survey and failed to ensure staff used Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care during 1 of 4 resident care opportunities. (Residents #3 and #12) Findings include: Resident #3 Review of manufacture's guidelines titled (Proper Name) product guidelines for resp (respiratory) O2 (oxygen) tubing with no date, revealed, .Environmental Storage and Protection, For tubing not currently in use, containment should protect the material from degradation:.it should be contained in a clean, sealed plastic bag or container to protect it from dust, pet dander, and other contaminants. During observations on 2/23/2026 at 10:45 AM and again at 3:41 PM, Resident #3's oxygen…
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 before2025-08-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) used profanity toward a resident diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and was observed to have applied physical force during an incident, where the resident was laying flat on her back on the floor and the LPN forcefully pushed the resident's legs into her chest and used profanity toward the resident. This placed the resident at risk for humiliation, intimidation, and harm. This was identified for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Findings include: Cross-reference F609Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, dated January 2019, revealed, Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse. Physical Abuse - includes, but is not limited to, hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking. Corporal punishment is considered physical abuse. Verbal Abuse - may be considered a form of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that all allegations of abuse were immediately reported to the State Agency, failed to report allegations involving a licensed nurse to the appropriate licensing board, and failed to ensure staff recognized and reported abuse. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse allegations. (Resident #1)Findings include: Cross-reference F 600Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, dated January 2019, revealed: All alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property, will be reported immediately to the Administrator, State Agency, and other officials in accordance with State law. Allegations involving licensed staff will be reported to the appropriate licensing authority.Record review of a facility-reported incident dated 7/29/25 revealed allegations of abuse were made against Licensed Practical Nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to identify and provide needed care and services that were resident centered, in accordance with the resident's preferences, goals for care, and professional standards of practice to meet resident's physical needs for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for quality of care. Resident #3 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Notification of Change in Patient/Resident Health Status dated June 2017, revealed, Purpose: to ensure all interested parties are informed of the patient's/resident's change in health status so that a treatment plan can be developed which is in the best interest of the patient/resident . C. A need to alter treatment significantly (i.e. a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment). Depending on the nursing assessment appropriate notification may be immediate to 48 hours . Record review of facility policy titled, Skin Care Guidelines, dated July 2018, revealed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's rights were honored when a staff member refused to assist a resident with toileting for one (1) of four (4) survey days. Resident #2 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights & Quality of Life, with an effective date of March 13, 2020, revealed, .It is the policy that all residents and patients have the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to people and services inside and outside the center . An observation and interview on 8/27/24 at 12:00 PM, revealed Resident #2 sitting in her wheelchair in her room. Resident #2 stated My bladder is about to bust. I've got to go to the bathroom so bad. I just returned from an appointment and haven't been to the bathroom since leaving the facility this morning. The resident was observed using her call light to ask for help. The resident stated they won't do it right now. They always say they can't while they are passing out trays.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-29 · 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 resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to resolve grievances related to food concerns and bed linens not being changed for five (5) of seven (7) residents with grievances. Resident #3, #19, #26, #88, and #108. Findings Include: Review of the Facility policy titled Customer Concern (Grievance) Policy dated 7/2018, revealed Purpose: Support each customer's (patient's/resident's) right to voice concerns (grievances) and to ensure after receiving a concern, the center actively seeks a resolution and keeps the customer appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution .Process . The Administrator will ensure a thorough investigation is conducted and will respond to the customer (patient/resident) The Administrator shall follow up on the correction of the problem and finalize the Customer Concern Form validating the resolution of the concern including who did what, when, and where It is best practice for the Administrator to follow up with the customer after a period of time to ensure the customer remains satisfied…
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 before2024-08-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 resident and staff interviews, record view, facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a care plan for nail care for Resident #41 and failed to develop a care plan for the application of leg braces for Resident #51 and failed to develop a behavior monitoring care plan for Resident #113 for three (3) of 26 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #41, #51 and #113 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Care Plans dated October 2021, revealed, Care plans will be developed for all patients and residents based upon the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual guidelines. Care plans are developed by the interdisciplinary team and revised as needed according to resident and patient status or change. Resident #41 Review of the Care Plan undated for Resident #41 revealed, Self Care Deficit related to: decreased functional abilities, weakness. Also revealed, Nail, hair, and oral care daily and as needed. On 8/26/2024 at 11:36 AM, an observation of Resident #41 revealed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene as evidenced by failure to provide nail care for one (1) of 24 sampled residents. Resident #41 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled ADL's dated 8/2021 revealed Policy: Ensure ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) are provided in accordance with accepted standards of practice, the care plan, and reasonable accommodation of the resident's choices and preferences . An observation and interview with Resident #41 on 8/26/2024 at 11:36 AM, revealed, she was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. She held up her hands and stated, I need my nails cut. I keep scratching myself. The resident revealed her nails had not been cut in a long time and stated she was a diabetic. The nails on both hands were long and measured approximately one-half (1/2) inch in length. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 on 8/27/2024 at 10:58 AM, confirmed Resident #41's nails were long. She revealed that nail care had to be completed by a nurse since 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 before2024-08-29 · tag F0742 — patternProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review and facility behavior monitoring document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a new diagnosis of Binge Eating Disorder received appropriate behavioral monitoring and interventions to address the disorder for (1) one of (3) residents reviewed with behaviors. (Resident #113) Findings include: Review of a statement on facility letter head titled, Behavior Monitoring undated, revealed Specific behaviors are identified based on resident assessments. Behaviors are monitored by the nurses and quantitatively recorded in the medical record. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident # 113 on 7/19/24 with a diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes with Hyperglycemia and Schizophrenia. Resident #113 was re-admitted on [DATE] with a new diagnosis of Binge Eating Disorder. In an interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 on 8/27/24 at 2:00 PM, she revealed that Resident #113 was always wanting and looking for snacks and has…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-29 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure foods were palatable, attractive and at a safe and appetizing temperature, for seven (7) of 12 residents sampled for dining. Resident #19, #41, #52, #88, #101, #102, and #108. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food: Quality and Palatability with a revision date of 9/2017 revealed Policy Statement: Food will be prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor and appearance. Food will be palatable, attractive and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. Food and liquids are prepared and served in a manner, form, and texture to meet resident's needs . Resident #19 During the resident council meeting on 8/27/24 at 3:05 PM, Resident #19 revealed the cornbread was so flat and hard there was no way to chew and swallow it. Resident #19 confirmed he had received foods that were not cooked thoroughly before. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #19 on 12/23/2023 with a medical diagnosis of Mixed…
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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately complete Section N of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two (2) of twenty-six MDS reviewed. Resident #46 and Resident #96. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled, RAI Process Guideline dated September 2020, revealed, . All items in the MDS are to be coded per the instructions of the CMS Long-Term Care Facility Assessment User's Manual MDS 3.0 . Resident #46 Record review of the MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/24/24, revealed under section N, Resident #46 received seven (7) days of Anticoagulant medication for the observation look back period of 7/18/24 through 7/24/24. Record review of the Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for the MDS 7-day observation look-back period for anticoagulant medication revealed Resident #46 did not receive anticoagulant medication between 7/18/24 and 7/24/24. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #46…
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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for range of motion. Resident #51 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Splinting and Orthotics dated 9/5/17, revealed, It is the policy of (proper name of rehabilitation service) that therapist recommend, within their scope of practice, appropriate splinting and orthotics for patients currently receiving therapy services, as the need arises. For splinting/orthotic needs that the therapist deems outside their scope of practice or expertise, therapist will notify the facility and make appropriate referrals to outside sources Therapy personnel will work with the facility, patient and caregivers to recommend appropriate materials for fabrication/modification and/or to recommend prefabricated splinting/orthotic options. Once trained by therapy, the facility is responsible 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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 address dietary recommendations to change and/or increase a peg (percutaneous gastrostomy) tube feedings and water flushes to meet the nutritional needs for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed who received enteral nutrition. (Resident #112) Findings include: A review of the policy titled Queuing RD (Registered Dietician) Recommendations & Follow-up, with an effective date of 7/1/21 revealed .Recommendations for changes to enteral feedings, enteral flush orders . is reviewed to ensure that the supervising physician is in agreement with nutrition therapy orders. The order is then signed, acknowledged and activated in the electronic medical record by a licensed nurse . Record review of a Progress Note for Resident #112 by the RD dated 8/5/24 at 9:57 AM, revealed: Note Text: Consult for tube feeding (TF) caloric intake: CBW (Current body weight) 148.9. EEN (exclusive enteral nutrition) 1692-2030 kcal (kilocalorie).Glucerna 1.2 237 cc (cubic centimeters) bolus with 200 ml (milliliters) water…
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 before2024-08-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility medication checklist review, the facility failed to store an inhalant medication in a locked storage compartment as evidenced by medication being left at the resident's bedside for one (1) of seven (7) medication observations. Resident #21 Findings include: Record review of Performance Checklist Skill 21-1 Administering Oral Medications, dated 2014, revealed, . Implementation . l. Returned stock containers or unused medication to shelf or drawer, labeled cups and poured medications before leaving preparation area, did not leave drugs unattended.2. Administered medications . p. Stayed until patient/resident completely took all medication by the prescribed route . Record review of facility's letterhead, undated, revealed, (Proper name of facility) uses the Medication Administration Competency Checklist from [NAME] and [NAME] as a guideline for medication administration. During an interview with Resident #21 and an observation in…
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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — isolatedEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews and snack program document review, the facility failed to provide residents with a bedtime snack for six (6) of six (6) residents interviewed during the resident council meeting. Resident #3, #13, #19, #88, #94, and #108 Findings Include: Review of the H.S. (Bedtime) Basic Snack Program: Evening undated, revealed, Basic snack program items delivered between 7:30 pm -8:00 pm. Bulk snack cart should include (2-3) basic choices for the residents. A resident council meeting was held on 8/27/2024 at 3:05 PM, in which Resident #3, #13, #19, #88, #94, and #108 revealed they were not receiving a bedtime snack. Resident #88 revealed the kitchen did bring snacks out at night, but they left them at the desk and they were not passed out to the residents. He revealed the residents that were able to go to the desk had been getting their snacks. He stated, So it's first come, first served. He revealed if a resident was not mobile, they would not get a snack because they do not bring them to the rooms. Residents #3, #88, and #108 confirmed they were diabetics…
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 before2023-08-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed were protected from physical abuse. Resident #1. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions taken on 08/01/23, this was determined to be Past Non-Compliance. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy dated January 2019, revealed, Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and to ensure reporting and investigation of alleged violations .in accordance with Federal and State Laws .Definitions: . Physical Abuse: Includes, but not limited to, hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking . Record review revealed an investigation dated 08/01/23 of an alleged physical abuse conducted by the facility involving Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 and Resident #1. At approximately 2:45 PM on 08/01/23, CNA #1 was assisting CNA #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 before2023-04-27 · 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, resident and staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to honor a resident's privacy as evidenced by a sign posted over the resident's bed that read two (2) stool samples needed with the resident's name and date, for one (1) of 111 residents reviewed for dignity. Resident #99 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident's Rights and Quality of Life with a revision date 5/1/12 revealed under, Policy Statement . It is the policy of (Proper Name) that all residents have the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to people and services inside and outside the facility. This review revealed A resident has the right .To personal privacy and confidentiality of personal and clinical records. An interview and observation on 04/25/23 at 10:35 AM, with Resident #99 revealed a handwritten sign posted on the wall above the resident's bed that read, Resident #99's name and the need to collect two (2) stool…
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 · D2023-04-27 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to reevaluate the Advance Directive information for a resident and to provide the information to the resident directly once she was able to cognitively receive the information for one (1) of 32 residents' Advance Directives reviewed. Resident #65 Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled, Advance Directives, dated 11/1/16, revealed, (Proper name of facility) recognizes the dignity and value of each Resident's right to make health care decisions and to be fully informed of his or her complete health status. Furthermore, (Proper name of facility) recognizes the right of each Resident to issue Advance Directives regarding his or her health care. The policy also revealed, The center will provide residents with information regarding Advance Directives at admission . If a resident is incapacitated at the time of admission so that he/she is unable to receive information about Advance Directives or articulate…
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 · D2023-04-27 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 representative and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to resolve a grievance as evidenced by the resident representative not being reimbursed for missing clothing for one (1) of 23 residents sampled. Resident # 62 Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled, Customer Concern (Grievance) Policy with a revision date of July 2018 revealed under Purpose .Support each customer's (patient's/resident's) right to voice concerns (grievances) and to ensure after receiving a concern, the center actively seeks a resolution and keeps the customer appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution. The goal is to encourage open communication of customer concerns in an environment free from reprisal, retaliation, or discrimination. We have a commitment to customer service and have systems in place to address concerns, Our Grievance Official is the center Administrator. The Grievance Official's contact information, including phone number and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-27 · 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 resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for a resident who smokes for one (1) of 23 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #58 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan revealed under, Practice Guidelines: #1. The interdisciplinary care plan is implemented to guide health care center staff in the provision of necessary care and services to obtain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident and promotion of the resident and family in planning care .#3. Interdisciplinary team communicates mental and psychosocial problems, needs, and concerns to the care planning team for inclusion in the overall plan of care. Resident #58 Record review of the facilities list of smokers confirmed that Resident # 58 was a smoker. Record review of Resident #58's care plans revealed that there was no care plan related to smoking. An interview…
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 before2023-04-27 · 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 observations, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide services to maintain hygiene for a resident who was dependent on the staff as evidenced by long nails with a brown substance under each nail and 1/4-inch-long gray hair on the resident's chin for one (1) of 111 resident's reviewed. Resident #1 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Nail Care with no revision date revealed under, Policy .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. Also revealed under, Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: #3. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during ADL care on an ongoing basis. #4. Routine nail care, to include trimming and filing, will be provided on a regular schedule (such as weekly on Wednesday 3-11 shift). Nail care will be provided between scheduled occasions as the need arises . Review of the facility policy titled, Grooming 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 before2023-04-27 · 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 resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to perform a safe smoking assessment for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for smoking. Resident #58 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Smoking Policy, with an effective date of May 1, 2021, revealed under Purpose 1. To maximize our ability to provide a safe environment for all residents, visitors, and staff. 2. To perform assessments, which determine a resident's ability to smoke safely and determine what, if any, additional measures are needed to protect residents from possible self-inflicted injury due to smoking habits .Procedure 1. Upon admission, quarterly, and with any change in condition, it is to be determined by the nurse if the resident requires supervision while smoking. Utilize the Safe Smoking Assessment . An interview with Resident #58 on 4/26/23 at 3:00 PM, verified that she was a smoker but was unsure when she began smoking again. An interview with the Director of Nurses…
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 before2023-04-27 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a person centered care plan for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for one (1) of 23 care plans reviewed, Resident # 66. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan revealed under, Practice Guidelines: #1. The interdisciplinary care plan is implemented to guide health care center staff in the provision of necessary care and services to obtain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident and promotion of the resident and family in planning care .#3. Interdisciplinary team communicates mental and psychosocial problems, needs, and concerns to the care planning team for inclusion in the overall plan of care. Resident #66 Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/24/23 revealed in section I a diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and in section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status…
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 before2023-04-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent the possible spread of infection as evidenced by staff failed to sanitize a multi-use resident blood pressure cuff after each use, sanitize a multi-use stethoscope prior to use, to sanitize hands after administering eye drops and prior to administering percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) medication, and failed to rinse and dry a PEG tube syringe after use to prevent the growth of bacteria for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed during medication and treatment administration. Resident #65 and Resident #91. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control, with an effective date of 11/1/2017, revealed under Policy Statement . This Center's infection control policies and practices are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe sanitary environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections .Interpretation and Implementation: . 2.) Objectives: a.) Establish…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE — 44 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 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIVERSICARE LEASING COMPANY III LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2016 |
| DIVERSICARE OF EUPORA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/04/2022 |
| ADVOCAT FINANCE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| DAC NEWCORP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/04/2022 |
| DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/10/1994 |
| DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| KELLMAN, FRANKLIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| KOHN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/19/2021 |
| RATNER, ERAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| BODIE, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/02/2020 |
| NEE, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/20/2023 |
| WEISHAAR, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2003 |
| MURPHY, COREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2018 |
| DMS GP LLC | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/04/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 74% 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 $612K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 255117. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.