Magnolia Senior Care, LLC
3701 Peter Quinn Drive, Jackson, MS 39213 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (601) 366-1712 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $8,542 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.6% | 20.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.8% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.3% | 23.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 6.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.8% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.5% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 2.43 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.99 | 2.86 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.7% | 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 | 3.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 56.6 residents a day — about 94% 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 4.14 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.56 is at or above 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.39 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-02-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) followed the comprehensive plan of care for manual assistance for two (2) of four (4) sampled residents. Resident #1 and Resident #2. Findings include: A record review of the facility policy on Comprehensive Care Plans, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the residents rights, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental psychosocial needs that are identified in the residents comprehensive assessment. Resident #1 A record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, with a target date of 3/3/2025 revealed, Focus: She requires limited to extensive assist with some of her daily care .Interventions .Provide Extensive Assist of Two With Her Manual Transfers . Record review of the the Visual/Bedside [NAME] Report with a printed…
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 · G2025-02-10 · 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, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from accident hazards, causing harm, when Resident #1 was dropped from a lift. Resident #2 had the possibility of an accident hazard when staff transferred the resident using one person assistance, instead of the assessed two (2) person assistance for (2) of four (4) resident sampled for accidents and hazards. Resident #1 and Resident #2. Findings include: A review of the facility, Lift Program Policy,, undated, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of the facility to help lift residents who are unable to be lifted manually, promote comfort and to maintain good body alignment while the resident is being moved .Procedure 1. The portable lift requires (2) trained person to perform the procedure each time it is used . Resident #1 Record review of a facility reported investigation (FRI) revealed on 2/2/25, Resident # 1 sustained a fall with injury. At around 5 AM the Director of Nursing (DON)…
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 before2026-04-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to implement comprehensive care plan by not following physician orders related to the application of compression hose, nurses cleaning and changing tubing on suction device and wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing direct care for three (3) of five (5) care observations. Resident #6, Resident #8, and Resident #22.Findings Include:Record review of the facility policy Comprehensive Care Plans revision date of 10/23 revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person- centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs, that are identified in the resident's comprehensive care assessment .Resident #6Record review of the Care Plan Report revealed Focus: She has problems with chronic recurring edema to her (B) (bilateral) lower extremities.Intervention.Apply her (B) knee-high compression hose q…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to follow physician orders, as evidenced by not applying compression hose for a resident and not cleaning suction equipment for two (2) of (2) residents reviewed. Resident #6 and #22.Findings Include:Record review of the facility policy Provision of Quality Care dated 2025, revealed, Based on comprehensive assessments, the facility will ensure that residents receive treatment and care by qualified persons in accordance with professional standards of practice.Each resident will be provided with care and services to attain or maintain his/her highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being . Resident #6During an observation and interview on 04/13/2026 at 11:20 AM, Resident #6 was observed in bed and stated, My legs are swollen and I do not have my compression hoses on yet. My Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) will come to put them on after lunch. She pulled the bed covers back and the State Agency (SA) observed her legs were swollen and she had red slip free socks on.During…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-16 · tag F0851 — patternElectronically 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete submission of staffing data through the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for one (1) of four (4) FY (fiscal year) quarters reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inaccurate public reporting of staffing levels and misrepresentation of the facility's actual staffing, including the omission of contract nursing staff hours. Findings included:Record review of the facility policy titled Payroll Based Journal, dated 2025, revealed It is the policy of this facility to electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS .During an interview on 04/16/2026 at 11:50 AM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated he is responsible for compiling and submitting PBJ data to the CMS portal. He stated employee…
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 before2026-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record reviews and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent the possibility of spreading infection as evidenced by not wearing proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and not adhering to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during high contact care, not performing hand hygiene prior to care and not protecting a yankeaer from bacteria, changing tubing, and cleaning a suction device for three (3) of five (5) care observations. Resident# 8, Resident #22 and Resident #49.Findings include:Record review of the facility policy Hand Hygiene Policy dated 2025 revealed, Staff involved in direct resident contact will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents and visitors . Before performing residents care procedures.Record review of the facility policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 2025 revealed it is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. EBP refers to an infection control…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · 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 observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to honor residents' rights as evidenced by posting of personal signage in the resident's room for one (1) of (14) residents reviewed. Resident #6.Findings Include: Record review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy dated 2025 revealed the facility will ensure that all direct care and indirect care staff members, including contractors and volunteers, are educated on the rights of residents and the facility's responsibility to provide proper care to residents.On 04/13/2026 at 11:20 AM, during an observation and interview revealed Resident #6 was in bed. Observed signage on the wall Please put on compression hose daily even when resident is in bed. They are to be removed every night at bedtime Resident #6 stated, my legs are swollen, I do not have my compression hoses on yet. My Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) will come to put them on after lunch. Resident #6 pulled her bed covers back and her legs were swollen. She had red slip free socks on. She stated the facility put that sign on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to include a resident's diagnosis of Dementia, to provide information related to treatment and appropriate interventions for one (1) of 14 care plans reviewed. Resident #9 Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titles, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 10/23, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychological needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment . A record review of Resident #9's Comprehensive Care Plan reveled it does not have a focus, with goals and interventions related to a Dementia diagnosis. On 12/18/24 at 11:22 AM, during an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1/ Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse , 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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff supported and respected a resident's right to make choices about his or her meal preferences for one (1) of (14) sampled residents. Resident #46. Findings Include: A review of the facility policy titled, Residents Rights, (undated), revealed, . Freedom to Choose . We will accommodate as much as possible individuals needs and preferences in daily routines and activities. Self-determination and reasonable accommodations of individual choices are an important part of residents' rights . On 12/15/24 at 12:25 PM, during an interview with Resident #46, he mentioned that sometimes he likes the food, but he does not have alternative options available and would sometimes prefer to choose different foods instead of eating what is provided to him. He also noted that he is unaware of what is on the menu because there is not one in his room, and the staff do not inform him of the daily menu choices. On 12/16/24 at 10:19 AM, in a follow-up interview with Resident #46, he…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an enteral feeding pump was operated by licensed staff for one (1) of nine (9) residents observed with Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube feedings. Resident #39 Findings include: A record review of facility's policy, Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, dated 04/2017, revealed, It is a policy of this facility to utilize feeding tubes in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible . 6. In accordance with facility protocol, licensed nurses will monitor and check that the feeding tube is in the right location .: a. Tube placement will be verified before beginning a feeding . During an observation on 06/14/23 at 10:35 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 was observed providing catheter care to Resident #39. Prior to exiting the resident's room, the CNA turned the resident's feeding pump back on, as the feeding pump was on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 appropriate and sufficient care to prevent the possibility of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) for one (1) of four (4) incontinence care observations. Resident #15. Findings Include: Review of the facility's Perineal Care (peri-care) for Female policy, revised 4/2017, revealed, .The purpose of this procedure is to provide appropriate care according to current standards of practice . Procedure .8. Washes genital area, moving from front to back, while using a clean area of the washcloth or wipe for each stroke. 9. Using a clean washcloth or wipe, rinse soap from genital area, moving from front to back, while using a clean area of the washcloth or wipe for each stroke . On 06/14/23 at 11:35 AM, during an observation of incontinent care on Resident #15, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) revealed CNA #3 cleansed the genital area using a circular motion, instead of cleaning from front to back. In an interview on 06/14/23 at 11:38 AM, with CNA #3,…
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 before2023-06-15 · 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented to prevent the development and/or transmission of infection for two (2) of sixteen (16) sampled residents. Resident #15 and #39 Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Control Policy, dated 07/2017 revealed, This facility's infection control policies and practices are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections . 2. The objectives of our infection control policies and practices are to: .a. Prevent, detect, investigate, and control infections in the facility . Review of the facility's, Hand Hygiene Policy, dated May 2019 revealed, All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies to all staff working in all locations with the facility .Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,542 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $4,271 — penalty dated 2025-02-10
- $4,271 — penalty dated 2025-02-10
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TILLMAN SENIOR CARE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2017 |
| MONTGOMERY, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| ESTES, TIMOTHY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/08/2025 |
| STEPHENS, JOSEPH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/14/2025 |
| TILLMAN, CLIFFORD | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 86% 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 $528K 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 255275. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, 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.