Washington Care Center
1920 Lisa Drive Extended, Greenville, MS 38703 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (662) 335-2897 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- the CMS record shows $4,017 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-01)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.9% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 4.1% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 1.6% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.5% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.2% | 23.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.6% | 97.0% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 6.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.0% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 22.6% | 84.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.5% | 27.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.4% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 2.43 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.19 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 6.7–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 57.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.6% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.8–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 53.4 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.69 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.89 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-04-30 · 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 ensure items in the kitchen refrigerator were dated and labeled and failed to discard food items by the expiration date for one (1) of three (3) dietary tour observations. Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage Labeling, with a revision date of 08/12, revealed The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by adhering to proper storage and labeling procedures. 1. a. All temperature-controlled foods and ready to eat foods that are prepared in the facility and held for longer than twenty-four hours will be labeled. Information included on the label: Name of the Food, Date of storage. b. Foods stored in storage units will be surveyed routinely to identify and discard foods that have passed its manufacturer use-by date or expiration date .An observation and interview on the initial tour of the kitchen on 04/28/2026 at 10:15 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM) revealed in refrigerator number two (#2) a plastic gallon-size bag with no date and no label, the DM…
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 before2026-04-30 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately code Section A of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for a resident identified with a serious mental illness (SMI) through the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II process for one (1) of (16) MDS assessments reviewed. Resident #9Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Resident MDS Assessment, revised 9/9, revealed, An assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS. The completed assessment guides staff in identifying key information about the resident and serves as a basis for identifying resident-specific issues and objectives in order to develop a care plan. This process assists the resident in reaching the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being .Record review of Resident #9's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Summary of Findings Report, dated 5/8/23, revealed under Mental Health, the individual meets criteria for having a diagnosis of mental illness as defined by PASRR. The report further 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 · Dcited before2026-04-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the implementation of the resident's care plan for oral hygiene for one (1) of (16) care plans reviewed. Resident #4 Findings Include:Record review of the facility policy titled Care Plan Process, revised 12/24, revealed, The facility shall use the results of the assessments to develop, review, and revise the resident's comprehensive plan of care. The facility staff shall follow the care plan.Record review of Resident #4's Care Plan Report revealed under, Focus: Resident is dependent with oral hygiene. Further review revealed under, Interventions: Provide oral hygiene as needed. Provide X (times) 1 (one) staff with oral care at least two times a day & (and) or as indicated.On 4/29/26 at 12:58 PM, observation of Resident #4 revealed he was lying in bed and was non-verbal. The resident's lips were dry with dried particles of peeling skin noted on the lower lip. The lower teeth were covered in a light orangish-colored substance with yellowish-green secretions observed inside…
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 before2026-04-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide oral care to a resident dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for ADLs. Resident #4 Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Oral Hygiene, revised 1/24, revealed under Purpose: To clean the mouth, teeth, and gums; To remove particles of food; To remove bacteria and odor; To provide comfort to the resident; To keep the mouth moist.Record review of Resident #4's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 1/23/26 for NPO (nothing by mouth) diet.An observation on 4/28/26 at 10:38 AM revealed Resident #4 was lying in bed with upper and lower lips that were dry, with cracking and peeling skin on the lower lip. The resident's lower teeth were covered in a thick white substance.An observation on 4/29/26 at 12:58 PM revealed Resident #4 was lying in bed and was non-verbal. The resident's lips were dry with dried particles of peeling skin noted on the lower lip. The lower teeth were covered in a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-30 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the administration of the influenza vaccine in accordance with facility policy to prevent the spread of infection for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for immunizations. Resident #10.Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Influenza Vaccination Program for Employees and Residents, revised 1/24, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide employees and residents with influenza vaccination every year between October and March. This is consistent with recommendations from the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) and state and local health departments.Record review of Resident #10's Vaccine Information and Consents revealed the Responsible Representative (RR) consented for the resident to receive the annual influenza vaccine on 2/3/26.Record review of Resident #10's Clinical Immunizations revealed that under Influenza Seasonal, the resident was documented as not eligible for the vaccine. The record also indicated the resident was admitted after flu season, with this entry…
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 · F2024-08-21 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to submit accurate staffing information into the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system for one (1) of four (4) quarters reviewed. Second (2nd) Quarter 2024. Findings include: Review of the facility PBJ (Payroll-Based Journal) Instructions with a revision date of February 3, 2020 revealed, PBJ = Payroll-Based Journal - Mandated by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Each location must collect time worked by contract workers. The corporate office will submit at regular intervals Review of the PBJ (Payroll-Based Journal) Staffing Data Report revealed the facility triggered for excessively low weekend staffing data for the 2nd Quarter 2024 [NAME] report from CMS.Triggered=Submitted Weekend Staffing data is excessively low. An interview with the Administrator on 8/20/2024 at 9:25 AM, revealed, she was not aware of the facility triggering on the [NAME] report for low weekend staffing data and stated the corporate office was responsible for submitting the PBJ. She revealed the facility had been using agency staff…
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 before2024-08-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately code a quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) for one (1) of 16 resident assessments reviewed. (Resident # 11) Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment, with the latest revision 09/19 revealed, .The completed assessment guides the staff in identifying key information about the resident's specific issues and objectives to develop a care plan . Any healthcare professional that completes a portion of the assessment must sign and certify the accuracy of the portion of the assessment that they have completed . In an interview with Resident #11 on 8/20/24 at 11:00 AM, she revealed she was not on or receiving Hospice services. Record review of Resident #11's Section C of the Quarterly MDS revealed on 7/08/24 a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Section: O- Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs was coded Hospice services while a resident. In an interview with…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident on a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication had a stop date for one (1) of five (5) medication reviews. Resident #40 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medication, revised 10/22, revealed Residents do not receive psychotropic drugs pursuant to a PRN (as needed) order unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed a specific condition that is documented in the clinical record; and PRN orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days. Review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 8/21/24 for Resident #40 revealed an order dated 7/5/2024, Xanax oral tablet 0.5 mg (milligram) (Alprazolam) give (1) tablet by mouth every 6 (six) hours as needed for agitation . There was no stop date for the order. Review of the August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #40 revealed the resident received Xanax 0.5 mg on the following dates: 8/3, 8/4, 8/8, 8/9, 8/10, 8/13, 8/14, 8/15, 8/16, 8/18, 8/19, 8/20, 8/21.…
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 · D2024-07-01 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident representative and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to honor a resident's right to return to the facility following a hospitalization for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for discharge. Resident #1. Findings Include: Record review of facility policy titled, Discharge Transfer and Planning , revised 9/23, revealed The facility must permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility .Before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand .The Discharge/Transfer notice shall be made by the facility at least 30 days before the resident is transferred or discharged . Record review of the Face Sheet for Resident #1 revealed that the facility admitted him on 12/24/2013 with diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction and Alzheimer's Disease. The facility discharged Resident #1 on…
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 before2023-02-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a resident requiring shaving and failed to implement the care plan for residents requiring nail care for two (2) of 18 residents reviewed. Resident #24 and Resident #42 Findings include: Resident #24 A record review of the facility policy titled, Care Plan Process Policy , with a revision date of 08/17, revealed regulations require facilities to complete, at a minimum and at regular intervals, a comprehensive, standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity and needs, in relation to a number of specified areas (e.g., customary routine, vision, and continence. The facility shall develop and implement a Baseline Careplan and Summary NS 813 for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meets professional standards of quality care. An observation on 02/06/23 at 11:20 AM,…
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 before2023-02-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interview, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) as evidenced by long and jagged nails, and unshaven facial hair for two (2) of eighteen residents observed. Resident #24 and Resident #42 Findings include: A record review of the facility policy titled, A.M. Care policy' with a revision date of 10/17 revealed, Purpose: To prepare the resident for their day, to maintain oral health and bodily hygiene, and to maintain the resident's desired physical appearance . Procedure: 12. Assist the resident with grooming according to their preferences (makeup application, shaving, hair removal, hair care, and styling, etc.) . A record review of the facility policy titled, Nail Care Policy, with a revision date of 10/17 revealed, Purpose: To promote cleanliness, safety, and a neat appearance. To observe skin condition on fingers and toes .Procedure: 8. Trim the nails straight across, and even with the end 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.
“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
$4,017 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $4,017 — penalty dated 2024-07-01
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/01/2008 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PROVIDENCE CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| REGIONAL CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| REGIONAL SERVICES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| TRISTAR REHAB INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BEEBE, BOBBY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BEEBE, ELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| JOHNSON, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/08/2022 |
| KARIM, PARVEZ | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/23/2014 |
| SMART, BRIONNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/16/2024 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| ALISONS 2016 FAM TR NO 2 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BEEBE 2013 CHILDRENS TR NG | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FELICIAS 2016 FAM TR NO 2 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| NUTRITION SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/31/2008 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2018 |
| QSST TR FOR ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WASHINGTON CARE CENTER, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
15 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 89% 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 $383K 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 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 255314. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-30, 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.