Windham House Of Hattiesburg
37 Hillcrest Drive, Hattiesburg, MS 39402 · For profit - Individual · 60 certified beds · (601) 264-0058 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 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 | 16.5% | 20.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 1.6% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.4% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.5% | 23.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 6.3% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.6% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.0% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.7% | 27.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.9% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.56 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.80 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
58.4% 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 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.4% 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 65 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 0.47 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 78% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 58.4%CMS range 49.1–66.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.7–13.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 75.4% | 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 | 75.4% | 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 | 76.9% | 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 | 95.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.2% | 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 | 2.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.9%CMS range 4.7–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 56.9 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.96 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-11-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to store food and maintain sanitary practices in accordance with professional standards for food safety, including expired foods, exposed foods, overly ripe produce, unsanitary practices by staff, and incomplete temperature logs for resident refrigerators for three (3) of (3) days of survey. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Food Storage Labeling, revised 05/18, revealed, Policy: The facility will ensure the safety and qualify of food by following good storage and labeling procedures .Procedure: 1. Labeling a. All temperature controlled foods .will be labeled. 3. Rotations b. Foods stored in storage units will be surveyed routinely to identify and discard foods that have passed their manufacturer use-by date or expiration date . A review of the facility's policy titled Employee Work Practices, revised 05/2018, revealed, Food service employees shall follow sanitary practices to prevent the spread of foodborne illness . Wears a . hair restraint (e.g., beard restraint)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-14 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident receiving dialysis for one (1) of one (1) dialysis residents reviewed. (Resident #10) Findings included: A review of the facility's policy Resident Assessment, revised 09/19, revealed, An assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS . The completed assessment guide the staff in identifying key information about the resident and serves as a basis for identifying resident-specific issues . The assessment will describe the resident's physical and mental deficits, strengths and the requirements of assistance to meet their needs . A record review of the Order Listing Report revealed Resident #10 had a Physician's Order, dated 7/27/24, for dialysis services at a local clinic every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility originally admitted Resident #10 on 4/26/2022 and with diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. A record review…
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 · D2024-11-14 · 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 observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to a dignified existence by posting clinical data on a resident board in open view for one (1) of 15 sampled residents. (Resident #36). Findings included: A review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy, reviewed 12/23, revealed Every resident in the facility has the right to .16. Have their personal and medical records treated as confidential . A review of the facility's policy titled Dignity and Respect, revised 07/22, revealed A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity .The facility shall protect and promote the rights of the resident . A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #36 on 07/19/2022 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction. During an observation and interview on 11/12/24 at 10:02 AM, there was identifiable care information visible on a board at the head of the bed in Resident #36's room. The documentation included the resident's name, turn rotation schedule, and care coordination…
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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a clean, comfortable home-like environment as evidenced by a stained privacy curtain, undusted high-touch areas, scuffed and dirty walls, and an unclean shower in the room of one (1) of 15 sampled residents. (Resident #18) Findings included: A review of the facility's policy Resident Environment, dated 09/15, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment . On 11/12/2024 at 1:16 PM, during an observation and interview, Resident #18's shower contained a hair wash basin and a dead house plant, with grime and dirt visible on the shower floor. The room had noticeable dust and spider webs above the overhead light, and grime and scuff marks were observed on the wall behind the headboard. The privacy curtain at the sliding glass door displayed oil and dirt stains. Resident #18, the sole occupant of the room, stated that she had never used the shower, noting that it had been grimy for over six (6) months.…
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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a resident's comprehensive care plan regarding Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while providing Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube care for one (1) of 15 sampled residents. Resident #19. Findings included: A record review of the facility's policy Care Plan Process, revised 08/17, revealed, . CAA's (Care Area Assessments) assist in guiding to develop an individualized plan of care and should provide structure for the care and services that are needed . When implemented properly, the CAA process should help staff: . address the need and desire for other important considerations . The comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary tool . for the care of the resident . A record review of Resident #19's Care Plan revealed Problem/Need: Resident has a feeding tube .Approaches .Enhanced barrier precautions-Gown and gloves to be worn during high contact resident care activities (dressing, bathing, transfers, changing linens, hygiene, and toileting . The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-14 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — isolatedHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, plan of correction review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to sustain an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee as evidenced by one (1) of (1) re-cited deficiency originally cited in April 2023 on an annual recertification survey. Findings Include: A review of the facility's, QAPI Governance and Leadership Guidelines', revised 08/15, revealed, Oversight of the facilities QAPI program is provided through the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA Committee) .The QAPI program is developed and led by the QA Committee, but requires input and participation from staff, residents and families .Element 5: Systematic Analysis and Systemic Action .The facility uses a systematic approach to determine when in-depth analysis is needed to fully understand the problem, its causes, and implications of a change. The facility uses a thorough and highly organized/structured approach to determine whether and how identify problems may be caused or exacerbated by the way care and services are organized or delivered…
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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed as high risk for acquiring multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs). (Resident #19) Findings included: A record review of the facility's policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revised 03/24, revealed, Enhanced Barrier Precautions are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes. Enhanced Barrier Precautions involve gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with an MDRO as well as those at increased risk of MDRO acquisition (e.g., residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices) . Indwelling medical device examples include central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes, and tracheostomies . On 11/13/2024 at 10:15 AM, during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 explained that she was aware Resident #19 was on EBP due to having a PEG tube. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-27 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded to reflect anticoagulant therapy and a nephrostomy tube for two (2) of 15 sampled residents. Resident #10 and Resident #18 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Resident Assessment with the latest revision date of 09/19 revealed An Assessment will be completed on each resident utilizing the MDS. The reason for assessment, schedule, and timeframes will be according to the guidance of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual .Any healthcare professional that completes a portion of the assessment must sign and certify the accuracy of the .assessment . Resident #10 On 04/25/23 at 12:12 PM, during an interview with Resident #10, she stated that she is on Pletal (a medication to prevent platelets from sticking together and forming a blood clot). Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening (PAS) accurately reflected a diagnosis of a major mental illness for one (1) of 16 record reviewed. Resident #6 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Pre-admission Screening PAS/PASRR (MS (Mississippi) Only) revealed, Anyone applying for admission into a nursing facility must be approved prior to the admission .The PAS with level 1 PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) must be submitted .and approved prior to admission to a nursing facility . A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #6 on 05/06/21 and she had a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type. A record review of the Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Application for Long Term Care, dated 05/06/2021, revealed B Level II Referral was marked to indicate Resident #6 did not have a diagnosis of a major mental illness. A review of the resident's preadmission records provided by the facility revealed Resident #6 was admitted from another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 5 of 5 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELTON G BEEBE SR IRRV GRNDCHILDRENS TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 01/01/2010 |
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 85% | since 01/01/2010 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PROVIDENCE CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| REGIONAL CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| REGIONAL SERVICES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| TRISTAR REHAB INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BEEBE, BOBBY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BEEBE, ELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| FLIPPIN, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| GRIFFITH, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| REEDY, ROSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/11/2020 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| SUMRALL, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/31/2023 |
| ELTON G BEEBE FAMILY MORTAGE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FOUR GENERATIONS HOLDINGS 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 |
| WINDHAM HOUSE OF HATTIESBURG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
15 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 72% 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 $472K 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 255265. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-08, 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.