No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Grenada Living Center

1950 Grandview Drive, Grenada, MS 38901 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (662) 226-9554 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (662) 226-9554 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 11 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1900 Grandview Dr · (662) 226-5121 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1117 Sunset Dr · (662) 226-1212 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2110 Commerce St
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1060 Avent Dr · (662) 582-4145

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 1 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.4%20.5%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.0%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.7%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.8%2.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.4%1.6%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.6%3.1%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened19.7%19.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication32.9%23.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.2%6.3%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control22.3%20.7%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.6%21.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication7.4%2.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.2%84.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission32.2%27.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit25.7%15.5%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.192.431.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days3.162.861.80worse

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.

45.9% 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 93 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

45.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
29.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.25U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 29.6% 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 54 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF45.9%CMS range 37.2–54.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.2%CMS range 9.2–16.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge29.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge27.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge31.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified93.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay4.4%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.2%CMS range 3.5–10.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.281.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.47
RN hours/ resident / day
1.13
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.05
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.65
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.34
RN hoursweekends
36.6%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 85.0 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-10)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2023-10-05)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · D2025-04-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 a call light was accessible for one (1) of 17 residents reviewed for call lights. Resident #45. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Call Light/Bell with a revision date of 1/24 revealed under, Purpose: To provide the resident with a means of communication with staff members .To provide staff members with a means of summoning assistance when they are with the resident . An observation and interview with Resident #45 on 4/07/25 at 10:50 AM revealed he was sitting in his wheelchair inside his room watching television. The right side of the bed was turned against the wall with the call light cord wrapped around the bed rail multiple times, and the end of the call light was hanging down behind the bed, unreachable. The resident verbalized that he used the call light to request help but could not do that with it tied to the bed rail where he could not access it. He revealed that if he needed help, he would roll his wheelchair to the door 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to honor a resident's choice related to food preferences for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for choices. Resident #61. Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy Dignity and Respect with revision date of 07/22 revealed A facility must .care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility shall protect and promote the rights of the residents .3. All residents should have autonomy of choice, to the maximum extent possible, about how they wish to live their everyday lives and receive care .4 .Resident's individual preferences regarding such things as menus .will be elicited and respected by the facility, and efforts will be made to accommodate these wishes . An observation and interview on 4/07/25 at 12:10 PM with Resident #61 revealed she was sitting in her room eating her lunch meal. She stated that she did not like rice or…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    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 policy review, the facility failed to accurately submit a resident's information for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for a Level II evaluation for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for PASRR. (Resident #43) Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pre-admission Screening PAS/PASRR (MS Only) last reviewed 8/24, revealed, To enter a Long-Term Care program an eligible beneficiary must have a Pre-admission Screening (PAS) application completed to determine clinical eligibility for individuals seeking admission to a Division of Medicaid certified nursing facility on all residents regardless of payor source . Process . Review the medical records and other relevant medical documentation to verify major medical conditions and services . Record review of the admission Record revealed Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of Unspecified Psychosis, Major Depressive Disorder, and Psychotic Disorder with Delusions.…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a care plan related to fluid restriction for one (1) of 17 resident care plans reviewed. (Resident #20). Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Care Plan Process, last revised 12/24, revealed, The comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool .The care plan must include measurable objectives and timeframes and must describe services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . Review of a care plan for Resident # 20 revealed, Focus The resident is at risk for nutritional problems r/t (related to) ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) with fluid restriction on Hemodialysis . last revised 9/05/24 Interventions: 1000 ml (milliliters) fluid restriction. Document fluid intake. Day shift not to exceed 450 ml. Evening shift not to exceed 450 ml. Night shift not to exceed 100 ml . Record review 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 accurate monitoring and documentation of fluid intake for a resident on fluid restriction for one (1) of (4) four residents reviewed for fluid restrictions (Resident #20). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fluid Restriction, last reviewed February 2022, revealed the policy statement: Fluids will be restricted for residents as directed by the physician orders . Procedure: 3. Nursing service will document intake . Record review of the Order Summary Report for Resident #20 revealed an order dated 8/26/24 for a 1000 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction. The order directed that fluid intake must be documented and specified the following shift limits: day shift not to exceed 450 ml, evening shift not to exceed 450 ml, and night shift not to exceed 100 ml. Record review of the Intake and Output (I&O) forms for Resident #20 from 3/30/25 through 4/7/25 revealed incomplete documentation. Daily 24-hour…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
    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 follow a physician 's order for a referral to a pain management clinic for Resident #23, this was for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pain. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Pain Screen and Management with a revision date of 12/23 revealed, All residents who experience routine pain receive a comprehensive pain screening and a treatment plan until an acceptable level of relief of pain is achieved. All residents have the right to treatment for pain. On 4/07/25 at 11:15 AM, an observation and interview with Resident #23 revealed he was lying in bed and verbalized he was hurting in his lower abdomen (kidney area) and his lower ribs (lung area). The resident revealed he was unsure if he had taken something for the pain. An observation and interview of Resident #23 on 4/08/25 at 9:40 AM revealed he was lying in bed and the resident stated that he was hurting all over. The resident revealed that he had had a log truck accident in the past…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide privacy during one (1) of seven (7) treatment observations during the survey. Resident #6 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Residents Rights, with a revision date of 11/17 revealed, All residents in a long-term care facility have rights guaranteed to them under Federal and State law. Residents residing at this facility will be guaranteed a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. These rights include: # 5 Privacy and confidentiality . #26 The resident has a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records. a. Personal privacy includes accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications. personal care, visits, and meeting of family and resident groups, but this does not require the facility to provide a private room…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0699 — isolated
    Provide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to identify triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization and failed to develop the care plan to include individualized trauma- informed approaches for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for trauma- informed care. Resident #15. Findings include: A record review of the facility policy, titled Documentation-Social History, with a revision date of 10/23, revealed, Purpose, to record observations, outcomes, and responses in relation to social services as well as interventions, including trauma informed care, as identified in the comprehensive care plan, and the delivery of direct social services . A record review of Resident #15's Face Sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A record review of Resident #15's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/11/23 revealed a diagnosis of PTSD. The Brief 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 review, the facility failed to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection as evidenced by not performing hand hygiene during wound care and medication administration (Residents #6, #36, and #39), failure to use a clean barrier during medication pass (Resident #78) and failure to properly sanitize a glucometer after use (Resident #36) for two (2) of four (4) days of survey. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, General Infection Prevention and Control Nursing Policies with an origination date of 06/14 and a review date of 08/21 revealed It is the policy of this facility that all nursing activities will be performed in a manner to minimize the potential for infection in residents, staff, and visitors. Some of the specific guidelines include: All items used for resident care will be cleaned and disinfected between uses or will be designated for that resident's use only .other common-use items will be cleansed 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-05-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observations staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to discard expired bread as evidenced by the observation of 28 packs of buns and rolls, with expired use by dates, in the dietary department, for one (1) of three (3) dietary tours. Review of facility policy titled, RECEIVING AND INSPECTION OF FOOD, with a review date 0f 9/12, revealed, Policy: The facility shall ensure that food is delivered to the facility in a safe condition . c. Reject if packaging has the following problems: vii. Expired code or use by date. Findings include: The initial kitchen tour observation, on 05/02/22 at 10:15 AM, revealed 20 packs of hamburger buns, six (6 )packs of hoagie buns, and two (2) packs of dinner rolls, in the dry goods storage room with an expiration date of 4/24/22. The observation also revealed a sign, that was posted, on the fourth brown bread tray, that contained six (6) packs of expired hamburger buns, that read, Use First. The observation revealed that the expired…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-05-05 · tag F0636 — isolated
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    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 policy review the facility failed to accurately code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 19 MDS's reviewed. Resident #32 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment, with the latest revision date of 09/19, revealed an assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS. The completed assessment guides the staff in identifying key information about the resident and serves as a basis for identifying 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. The assessment will describe the resident's physical and mental deficits, strenghths, and the requirements of assistance to meet their needs. The assessment will also identify risk factors associated with the possible functional decline and describe the resident's objectives for maintaining or improving their functional abilities. Record…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
EXTENDED CARE ASSOCIATES, INC.Organization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 01/01/2010
ELTON G BEEBE SR REVOCABLE TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/29/2025
BEEBE, BOBBYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
PARKINSON, TONIIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
REGIONAL CARE LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2014
REGIONAL SERVICES, INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
TRISTAR REHAB INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
BEASLEY, KARIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/07/2020
BEEBE, ELTONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
ESTES, TIMOTHYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2024
FLIPPIN, DAVIDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/04/2014
HENLEY, EVONDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/19/2022
PALMER, CHRISTIANAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/19/2023
ELTON G BEEBE FAMILY MORTAGE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FOUR GENERATIONS HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
GRENADA COUNTY PROPERTIES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
LINDA MAYNOROrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2011
NUTRITION SYSTEMS CONSULTING INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/31/2008
PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2018

CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

14 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.

$7.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$552K
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 88%Medicare 12%Other / private 0%

About 88% 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 $552K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$332per resident / day
operating cost
$10,095per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$301per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Mississippi
$9,581/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,885/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,369/mo
Assisted living

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 255104. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, 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.

What to do next