Gulfport Care Center
11240 Canal Road, Gulfport, MS 39503 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (228) 701-1500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0609, F0610) — most recent Jun 2025
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $24,281 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-05)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 held steady at 1 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 | 20.3% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.9% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.8% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.4% | 19.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.1% | 23.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.3% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.5% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.4% | 84.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.8% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.7% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.28 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.53 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
48.5% 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 143 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.2% 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 48 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.5%CMS range 39.7–57.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 9.0–15.5 | 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 | 54.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 37.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.3%CMS range 3.7–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 90 beds and averages 75.2 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.34 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
22 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to timely report an instance of elopement involving a resident with a history of hallucinations for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents and hazards (Resident #55). Resident #55 was observed inside the facility at approximately 4:00 AM on 5/31/25 and was found unsupervised in the facility parking lot by dietary staff at approximately 4:30 AM. Facility staff were unaware the resident had left the facility through an alarmed door, which staff failed to investigate despite hearing the audible alarm. This event was not reported to the State Agency until 6/2/25. The delay in reporting placed this resident and other residents at continued risk for exiting the facility unsupervised which increased the likelihood of serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC), which began on 5/31/25, when Resident #55 exited the facility. The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to initiate an investigation timely when Resident #55, who had a history of hallucinations, exited the facility for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents and hazards (Resident #55). Resident #55 was observed inside the facility at approximately 4:00 AM on 5/31/25 and was found unsupervised in the facility parking lot by dietary staff at approximately 4:30 AM. Facility staff were unaware the resident had left the facility through an alarmed door, which staff failed to investigate despite hearing the audible alarm. This event was not investigated by the facility until 6/2/25 in which the Administrator stated she was unaware of the elopement and believed the resident had been returned by staff immediately, indicating that no internal investigation was initiated as required. The facility's delayed investigation prevented timely identification of root causes, such as the failure to respond to the alarm, the door's egress function, and the lack of staff awareness, which placed Resident #55…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure supervision and implement adequate safety interventions to prevent accidents for two (2) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents and hazards (Resident #55 and Resident #47) as evidenced by: 1) failing to monitor door alarms and failing to immediately investigate an active exit alarm to prevent Resident #55 exiting the facility unsupervised and 2) failing to ensure safe transfer techniques when staff manually lifted Resident #47 without the use of the required stand lift, resulting in the resident's foot becoming caught under the wheelchair and causing a right ankle injury. On 5/31/25, at approximately 4:00 AM, Resident #55 exited the facility through the 400 hall exit door, which caused the door to alarm. The alarm was ignored by staff and resulted in the resident being found outside in the parking lot at approximately 4:33 AM by a dietary staff member arriving at work. The facility's failure to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-06-05 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the comprehensive care plan for three (3) of twenty (20) sampled residents reviewed for care plan implementation, Resident #164, Resident #47, and Resident #7. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1) provide Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube site care for Resident #164, resulting in a purulent wound, 2) failed to ensure a call light was within reach for Resident #7, and 3) failed to use a mechanical lift as directed in the care plan for Resident #47, resulting in a right ankle sprain. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Care Plan Process, with the latest review date of 12/24, revealed, . The comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool . The facility staff shall follow the care plan . A well developed and executed assessment and care plan .implements an interdisciplinary care plan based on the assessment information gathered . with necessary monitoring and follow-up . The Physician Orders, Medication Administration Record, 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-06-05 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper care and monitoring of enteral feeding and gastrostomy sites as evidenced by not providing timely physician orders, monitoring, and dressing changes for a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) site which resulted in an infected site with foul-smelling, purulent drainage (Resident #164) and enteral feeding equipment not labeled (Resident #6) for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for tube feeding and site care. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Tube Feedings with the latest revision date of 12/15 revealed, . 1. All tube feedings will be administered in accordance with . physician's orders .Procedures for administering tube feedings are in place and address . d. Care of insertion site e. Labeling of container . Resident #164 On 6/3/25 at 8:54 AM, during an observation and interview, Resident #164 reported she received a PEG tube in the hospital, had just resumed eating,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and record review the facility failed to ensure a call light was within reach for one (1) of 20 sampled residents, Resident #7. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Call Light/Bell, with the latest revision date of 1/24, revealed: Purpose: To provide the resident a means of communication with staff members To provide staff members a means of summoning assistance when they are with the resident . Procedure: 1. Ensure resident has call light in reach . On 6/2/25 at 10:30 AM, during an interview and observation, Resident #7 was observed lying in bed. Resident #7 stated she needed help but could not get anyone. A round palm pad call light and another call light were observed hanging and wrapped around a light fixture, not over the resident's bed and within her reach. On 6/2/25 at 10:50 AM, during an observation and interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #4, she explained that she completes rounds first thing in the morning and sees all her residents. CNA #1 confirmed that Resident #7's call light was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rights to privacy and confidentiality were maintained, when personal care signage was posted on the resident's door for one (1) of 20 sampled residents, Resident #14. Findings included: A review of the facility's Resident's Rights Policy, with the latest review date of 3/24, revealed, Every resident in this facility has the right to: . 12. Be treated courteously, fairly, and with the fullest measure of dignity . 16. Have their personal and medical records treated as confidential . A review of the facility's policy titled Dignity and Respect, with the latest review date of 7/22, revealed, A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and 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 resident . On 6/2/25 at 11:28 AM, during an observation and interview, Resident #14 was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change in status assessment for a resident admitted to hospice services (Resident #7) for one (1) of 20 sampled residents' MDS assessments reviewed. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled MDS Process with a latest revision date of 12/20 revealed, .The RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual is the source document to be used for . MDS coding guidelines, time schedules and requirements . A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Assessment with the latest revision date of 9/19 revealed, .An assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS. The reason for assessment, scheduled and timeframes will be according to the guidance of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. The Registered Nurse (RN) is responsible for verifying the completion of the assessment . A review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual Version 3.0, dated October 2024, revealed, .Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) . An SCSA is required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · 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 interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two (2) of 20 sampled residents reviewed for assessment accuracy (Resident #7 and Resident #5). Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Minimum Data Set (MDS) Process with a latest revision date of 12/20 revealed, . The RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual is the source document to be used for . MDS coding guidelines, time schedules and requirements . A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Assessment with the latest revision date of 9/19 revealed, . An assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS. The reason for assessment, scheduled and timeframes will be according to the guidance of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. The Registered Nurse (RN) is responsible for verifying the completion of the assessment . 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…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner to prevent the potential for foodborne illness during one (1) of three (3) kitchen observations. Specifically, expired milk and key lime juice were observed in use and/or not stored in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy Food Storage Labeling dated 05/2018, revealed .The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage and labeling procedures .Procedure .3. Rotation .b. Food stored in storage units will be surveyed routinely to identify and discard foods that have passed its manufacturer use by date or expiration date . On 6/2/25 at 9:44 AM, during an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager, there was one (1) gallon of opened reduced-fat milk with an expiration date of 5/29/25 inside Reach-In Cooler #3. The Dietary Manager confirmed that the milk was expired and expressed uncertainty regarding whether Dietary Aides may have served the expired milk…
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 · D2024-05-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, facility investigation, and policy review, the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity during care for one (1) of four (4) residents sampled. Resident #2 Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Policy, reviewed 12/23, revealed, Every resident in this facility has the right to: .12. Be treated courteously, fairly and with the fullest measure of dignity . A review of the facility's investigation revealed there was an allegation of verbal abuse reported to the facility on 3/22/24, by Resident #5, the roommate of Resident #2. Resident #5 reported that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) had verbally abused her roommate while providing care. Resident #5 reported that a CNA told Resident #2 that she needed to get her 'expletive' up and go the bathroom, when the resident had an accident in the bed. On 4/30/24 at 10:45 AM, during an interview with the Social Services Director (SSD), she confirmed that on 3/22/24, Resident #5, the roommate of Resident #2, informed her that during the early hours of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-02-01 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff resulting in residents not receiving showers and call lights not answered timely for five (5) of 18 sampled residents (Resident #25, #35, #60, #4, #65) and had the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: A record review of the facility's Nursing Services-Staffing policy, revised 11/17 revealed 1. Staffing - The facility will have sufficient nursing staff twenty-four hours every day to provide nursing and nursing related services to attain or help maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident .2. The facility will comply with established staffing requirements by the individual state governing agencies . 6. The facility will actively recruit staff necessary to meet the requirements . Record review of the provider's reporting data Casper Report revealed the facility triggered excessively low weekend staffing and triggered a one star rating for one quarter dated July…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to food items not dated with a use-by-date, food items without an identifying label, and food items opened and exposed for one (1) of three (3) kitchen observations. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy Food Storage Labeling, revised 5/18, revealed POLICY: The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage and labeling procedures. Procedure: 1. Labeling a. All foods in the facility will be labeled. Information included on the label: Name of the Food . Date of storage . 3. Rotations .b. Foods stored in storage units will be surveyed routinely to identify and discard foods that have passed its manufactured use-by date or expiration date . 4. Monitoring storage temperatures .d. Product Placement Food is stored in containers that are .tightly sealed or covered . On 01/29/24 at 09:11 AM, an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-02-01 · 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 Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (Casper) reporting data review, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ), (information of the staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) was accurately submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for one (1) of four (4) quarters reviewed. (4th Quarter) Findings include: Review of the provider's [NAME] reporting data revealed the facility triggered excessively low weekend staffing for the 4th Quarter (July 1, 2023 - September 30, 2023). On 01/31/24 at 09:45 AM, during an interview with the Administrator, she explained she was not aware the facility had triggered for low weekend in the 4th Quarter of 2023. She stated that she approved the facility's employee hours for PBJ submission and advised the corporate office that the hours were approved and were ready to be submitted. The Administrator advised that after reviewing the audit report, there were contract staff that were not included in the hours that were submitted to CMS. She confirmed there…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-01 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their personal fund accounts on weekends for nine (9) of 18 sampled residents with the potential of affecting 40 residents with personal funds. (Residents #2, 4, 19, 35, 37, 42, 46, 48, and 55) Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy General Resident Trust Fund Policies, revised 1/20, revealed .Residents have the right to manage their financial affairs .The law and regulations are intended to assure that residents have access to cash funds within a reasonable period of time . On 1/29/24 at 11:05 AM, during an interview, Resident #19 complained about not getting personal funds on the weekends. She explained she must plan on requesting money on Friday if she wanted money on the weekend because there was no staff at the facility to distribute funds on the weekend. She stated she could get money on the weekend by the Business Office Manager (BOM). On 1/30/24 at 1:30 PM, during the facility's resident council meeting, all the residents stated they were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 7 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-01 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide resolution to grievances related to call lights not being answered and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) turning off the call light and not returning for three (3) of six (6) months of Resident Council grievance logs reviewed. Findings Include: A review of the facility's Grievances-Residents, revised 10/23, revealed, .The facility shall make prompt efforts to resolve the grievances .The Administrator and his/her designee will conduct an impartial investigation of the allegations and will discuss the findings and recommendations within five (5) work days of receiving the complaint, with the complainant . In all grievance cases, the resident and/or legal representative will be informed of the result of the investigation . On 01/30/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview with the members of the Resident Council revealed, the residents reported unanimously, that on the night shift, throughout the week, they can wait hours for a response to the call light. The residents stated the night shift CNAs will…
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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident rights were honored by not consistently providing residents with their choice of receiving showers for three (3) of (18) residents reviewed for choices. Resident #25, Resident #35, and Resident #60. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Bathing revised 1/24, revealed, .Purpose .To ensure resident comfort and dignity .Processes 1. Inquire with the resident concerning bathing preferences (e.g., time of day, type of bathing- shower, bed bath, etc.) 2. Offer the resident choice in their bathing routine .8. Follow resident preferences as stated . Record review of the Inservice Training document, dated 11/7/23, 12/5/23, and 1/15/24, revealed the staff were educated by Registered Nurse (RN) #1/Staff Development on giving showers to residents and completing shower documentation. Record review of the Assignment Sheets revealed the facility had one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Scheduled for the 200 Hall on night shift which housed approximately 27 Residents on 1/1/24,…
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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to include the reason for resident transfers in a manner they could understand in the written notification of transfer provided to the resident and the Resident Representative (RR) for two (2) of two (2) sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident #16 and Resident #77) Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Discharge Transfer and Planning revised 9/23, revealed, .Before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must .Notify the resident and the resident's representatives of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand . Resident #16 A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #16 on 7/20/21 and he had current diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease. A record review of the Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/20/23 revealed Resident #16 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a resident and the Resident Representative (RR) written information at the time of a resident transfer to the hospital regarding bed hold policies for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident #16) Findings Include: Review of the facility's, Bed Hold Policy revised 11/23, revealed, .2. When a resident is transferred to the hospital .a copy of the completed form (notice) is provided to the resident, specifying the duration of the bed- hold according to the state plan, and the facilities policy regarding bed-hold periods. In case of emergency transfer, notice at the time of transfer means that the family or resident representatives are provided with written notification within 24 hours of the transfer. The requirement is met if the resident's copy of the notice is sent with other papers accompanying the resident to the hospital. The staff member completing the transfer paperwork…
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 · D2024-02-01 · 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 an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication was limited to a 14-day duration without clinical rationale documentation for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #13 Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy, Psychotropic Medications, revised 10/22, revealed . Residents do not receive psychotropic drugs pursuant to a PRN order unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record; and PRN orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days. Except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order . Record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #13 on 08/15/17 and she had diagnoses including Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. 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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard insulin vials after the discard date for one (1) of three (3) medication carts reviewed. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Medication Storage, revised 11/17 revealed . Medication storage shall meet all applicable federal, state, and local guidelines . On 01/31/24 at 3:39 PM, during an observation of the Medication Cart on the 100 Hall, and an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, observed a vial of Levemir insulin with an opened date of 11/15/23 for Unsampled Resident #12 and a vial of Lantus with an opened date of 11/24/23 for Resident #34. LPN #3 confirmed the opened dates for both vials were past 28 days and should have been discarded. She stated that giving insulin after 28 days could make the insulin less effective. LPN #3 explained that she did not administer either insulin and was unsure who was responsible for checking the insulin on the medication carts. A record review of Levemir medication insert, revised 7/2022, revealed . After vials…
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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were functioning for two (2) of 14 resident rooms on the 300 Hall. room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] Findings Include: A record review of the facility's policy Call Light/Bell, revised 01/24, revealed Purpose: To provide the resident a means of communication with staff members .To provide staff members a means of summoning assistance when they are with the resident . Procedure . 8. If the call light is defective, immediately report this information to the unit supervisor. Discuss with the charge nurse a rounding schedule to ensure that the resident's needs are met until the call light is in working order again . On 01/31/24 at 10:30 AM, during an observation of the call lights in resident rooms on the 300 Hall, with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, revealed there were two (2) resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]), with call lights that did…
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
$24,281 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $8,672 — penalty dated 2025-06-05
- $8,673 — penalty dated 2025-06-05
- $6,936 — penalty dated 2024-02-01
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 | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | 75% | since 01/01/2017 |
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2017 |
| DAVID & FELICIA STALLARD CHILD TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2017 |
| ELTON GLYNN BEEBE JR. & NANCY DOTY BEEBE IRRV TR UA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2017 |
| GERARD AND ALISON DANOS CHILDRENS TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 13% | since 01/01/2017 |
| JOSEPH & ALISON SADLER CHILDREN TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 13% | since 01/01/2017 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| 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 01/01/2017 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| REGIONAL CARE LLC | 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 01/01/2017 |
| CARRILLO, TANGIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/26/2020 |
| COMPTON, PHILLIP | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| FLIPPIN, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| HALL, BRYCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/27/2024 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| ELTON G BEEBE SR IRRV GRNDCHILDRENS TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HARRISON COUNTY PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LINDA MAYNOR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| 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 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 38 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
17 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.
This home reported $771K 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 255341. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.