Comfort Care Nursing Center
1100 West Drive, Laurel, MS 39440 · Government - County · 126 certified beds · (601) 422-0022 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Nov 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 fell from 5 to 2 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 | 32.6% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 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 | 3.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.4% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.1% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.9% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.5% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.9% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.8% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.2% | 15.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.02 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.02 | 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.
51.5% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.8% 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 96 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 | 51.5%CMS range 43.7–57.9 | 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 | 13.4%CMS range 9.9–18.1 | 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 | 45.8% | 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 | 58.3% | 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 | 39.6% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 1.5% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 4.0–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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 126 beds and averages 115.5 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 10 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 4.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.91 on weekdays — 31% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-12 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent an unsupervised exit from the facility, when the resident exited the facility unsupervised and remained outside unattended for approximately two (2) minutes before staff redirected him back into the facility for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for supervision. Resident #1 Findings include:A review of the facility's Falls Accidents and Incidents Policy, revised 10/1/25, revealed, Purpose: To promote an environment as free as is possible, of accident hazards over which the facility has control. Scope: Staff to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to help prevent avoidable accidents and injury.A record review of the facility investigation revealed on 5/8/26 at approximately 8:55 AM, while a visitor was leaving the facility, Resident #1 exited behind the visitor. The investigation revealed Resident #1 was intercepted on the front sidewalk of the facility by the social worker. The investigation included surveillance video that showed Resident…
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 · F2025-11-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review the facility failed to store food and maintain sanitary practices in accordance with professional standards for food safety related to foods not dated, foods not labeled, foods not properly sealed, overly ripe produce and unsanitary handling of ready to eat foods for two (2) of two (2) kitchen observations. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Food Safety Policy. Reviewed 08/27/2025, revealed, Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines.Facility staff shall inspect all food.Labeling, dating, and monitoring.food, including but not limited to leftovers, so it is used by its use-by-date or.discarded; and Keeping foods covered or in tight containers.Staff shall adhere to safe hygienic practices to prevent contamination of foods from hands. On 09/29/2025 at 10:30 AM, during an initial kitchen tour and interview with the Food Service Supervisor (FSS) observed Refrigerator #1 had four (4) trays containing prepared individual salads, individual dished out bowls of pudding, and individual dished out bowls of fruit,…
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 · E2025-11-18 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to review and resolve multiple resident grievances in a timely and effective manner, resulting in ongoing unaddressed environmental concerns expressed during three (3) of 3 consecutive months of Resident Council meetings. Findings include:A review of the Grievance Policy review date 11/17/16 revealed, Purpose To ensure the resident.right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without the fear of discrimination or reprisal . Responsibilities .The facility will review grievances in a timely manner and must make prompt efforts to resolve grievances. The facility will keep the resident appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution .A record review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes Reports dated 7/10/25, 8/14/25, and 9/11/25, revealed concerns expressed by the residents during the council meetings for housekeeping concerns regarding floors, trash, and cleaning the rooms in general.Resident #14During 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 · E2025-11-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 interviews and record reviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that staff reported allegations of verbal abuse involving two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for verbal abuse (Resident #66 and #93), and failed to report multiple allegations of misappropriation of resident property (money) involving five (5) of 14 residents in Resident Council (Residents #5, #8, #17, #38, and #81) to the State Agency (SA), as required by federal regulations. Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy, revised 8/26/25, revealed: It is the policy of this facility to provide protection of the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property . Reporting/Response 1. All alleged violations.will be report to the Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing who will report to the appropriate law enforcement officials when applicable, Mississippi State Department of Health…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and respect by licensed nursing staff for two (2) of four (4) residents reviewed for resident rights (Resident #66 and #93).Findings Include:A record review of facility policy titled Resident's Rights Policy revealed the resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility.On 9/29/25 at 11:43 AM, Resident #66 reported that night shift Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#1 raised her voice during a medication pass and spoke in a demeaning and intimidating tone. The resident stated she felt as though she was talked down to like a child. She also expressed fear of retaliation and concern for other residents who might not be able to speak up.On 9/29/25 at 2:45 PM, Resident #66's roommate, confirmed that LPN#1 was loud and intimidating and said the interaction was uncalled for 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by staff for two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse (Residents #66 and #93).Findings include:A review of facility policy Abuse Neglect and Exploitation Policy with a reviewed date of 8/26/25 revealed Purpose: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation.Definitions: 3. Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.During an interview on 9/29/25 at 11:43 AM, Resident #66 reported that night shift Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#1 raised her voice during a medication pass and spoke in a demeaning and intimidating tone. The resident stated she felt as though she was talked down to like a child. She also expressed fear of retaliation 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 protect residents from misappropriation of resident funds and failed to implement corrective action or reimburse residents after funds were reported missing, affecting five (5) of 14 residents interviewed in Resident Council (Residents #5, #8, #17, #38, and #81).Findings include:A record review of the policy, Abuse Neglect and Exploitation Policy latest review date of 8/26/25 reveals, Purpose: It is the policy of this facility to provide protection of the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property .On 9/30/25 at 10:15 AM, during a Resident Council meeting, Resident #85 (Council President) stated to the State Agency (SA) that multiple residents had reported their money was stolen a few months/weeks ago. She stated she notified the Administrator, who said he was busy, and then reported the issue to the Director of Nursing (DON), who told her all residents…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications and biologicals were securely stored to prevent access by unauthorized individuals for one (1) of four (4) days of survey.Findings include:A review of the facility's policy titled Controlled Medication Storage Accountability and Proper Destruction Policy, revised 5/17/18, revealed: .2. The outer lock on the medication cart is locked at all times when not in direct view of the nurse.During an observation on 9/29/25 at 11:23 AM, the wound care cart located on the 200 Hall was noted to be unlocked and unattended, with wound cleanser left unsecured on top of the cart. The cart remained unlocked for fifteen (15) minutes, until 11:38 AM when Registered Nurse (RN)#1 arrived, placed the unsecured cleanser inside the cart, and then locked it.During an interview with RN #1 on 9/29/25 at 3:51 PM, she stated the cart should always be locked but explained that the keypad locking mechanism had been malfunctioning, requiring her to use a manual key. She acknowledged that 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 · E2025-06-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician and the resident's representative of the initiation of psychosocial services for (3) of (3) sampled residents receiving individual psychosocial therapy, Residents #4, #5, and #6, with the potential to affect all 21 residents receiving psychosocial therapy. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the physician and resident representative (RR) were informed when 1:1 psychosocial therapy services were initiated by a third-party provider. Findings Included: A review of the facility's Resident Rights Notification of Changes Policy, reviewed date 05/30/2025 revealed, It is the policy of (Proper Name of Facility) to notify the resident; consult with the physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative of changes as discussed in the policy . On 6/11/25 at 11:00 AM, a phone interview with the complainant revealed that there is a Licensed Certified Social Worker (LCSW) that is not employed by the nursing home facility (3rd Party Provider)…
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 · E2025-06-12 · 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 record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included all services provided to address the psychosocial needs of three (3) of three (3) sampled residents receiving individual psychosocial therapy (Residents #4, #5, and #6), with the potential to affect all 21 residents receiving psychosocial therapy. Specifically, the facility failed to include ongoing psychosocial therapy services provided by the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) in the residents care plans to ensure coordination of care, consistent monitoring, and individualized interventions based on the residents' psychosocial needs. Findings included: A review of the facility's Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan Policy, reviewed on 1/24/2024, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered plan of care for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are…
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 · E2025-06-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided and documented according to professional standards for (3) of (3) sampled residents receiving individual psychosocial therapy, Residents #4, #5, #6, with the potential to affect all 21 residents receiving psychosocial therapy. Specifically, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for ongoing psychosocial therapy services provided by a third party Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), resulting in services being delivered without appropriate physician oversight. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Physician Orders, reviewed 01/24/2024, revealed, .Scope: Physician's orders that will be obtained, noted, and implemented appropriately . During a phone interview on 6/11/25 at 11:00 AM, the complainant revealed that there are no Physician's Orders for residents who are seen at the facility by a LCSW for behavioral therapy. She explained the LCSW is not employed by the nursing home facility (3rd Party Provider) and she refuses to share 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 · E2025-06-12 · tag F0742 — patternProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to identify, assess, and coordinate behavioral health services for three (3) of three (3) sampled residents receiving individual psychosocial therapy, Residents #4, #5, and #6, with the potential to affect all 21 residents receiving these services. Specifically, the facility allowed a Licensed Certified Social Worker (LCSW) to provide ongoing cognitive behavioral therapy within the facility without physician oversight, formal referral, or interdisciplinary coordination in which she accepted self-referred residents, regardless of whether clinical need had been identified. Findings Included: A review of the facility's policy, Dementia and Behavioral Health Services, reviewed 02/28/2024, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility that all residents receive the appropriate treatment and services for .necessary behavioral health care and services to assist him or her to reach and maintain the highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning .Discussion .6. Specialized services and supports will vary…
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 · E2025-06-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure complete and readily accessible medical records were maintained for (3) of (3) sampled residents receiving individual psychosocial therapy, Residents #4, #5, #6, with the potential to affect all 21 residents receiving psychosocial therapy. Specifically, the therapist maintained resident therapy documentation separately from the facility's medical record and did not share or integrate the documentation into the residents' facility medical records. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Medical And Personal Resident Records, reviewed 01/24/2024, revealed, .It is the policy .that the resident's personal and medical records shall be maintained in accordance with professional standards and practice Discussion: 1. The medical record shall be completely and accurately documented, readily accessible .to facilitate retrieval and compiling of information . On 6/11/2025 at 11:00 AM, during a phone interview with the complainant, she stated that a Licensed Clinical Social Worker…
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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0851 — isolatedElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit accurate direct care staffing information based on payroll data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) as required for one (1) of three (3) months reviewed. December 2023 Findings include: A review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data report from the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) database revealed the facility had triggered for Four or More Days Within the Quarter with no RN (Registered Nurse) Hours and Four or More Days Within the Quarter with <24 Hours/Day Licensed Nursing Coverage from 12/2/23 to 12/31/23. Record review of facility policy Nurse Staffing Information, revised 11/14/23, revealed it did not address the accurate submission of PBJ data. On 5/13/24 at 12:48 PM, the Business Office Coordinator stated she was unaware the facility failed to electronically submit PBJ staffing data to CMS accurately in the first quarter of FY (Fiscal Year) 2024. She explained she was responsible for entering the PBJ data for the facility and kept 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.
- 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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STAINES, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/21/2024 |
| EAST, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/16/2025 |
| GIBBES, GREGG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2023 |
| SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/1994 |
| HASBARGEN, BRITTANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2014 |
| HICKS, JUDITH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/29/2022 |
| PIPPEN, ALEXANDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/14/2024 |
| BREWER, ELSA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2021 |
| GOINS, LEWIS | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2024 |
| JONES, VICTOR | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/19/2020 |
| LOWE, MICHAEL | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/19/2022 |
| SCOGGIN, JACK | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2019 |
| SIGGERS, ARTHUR | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/15/2020 |
| WALTERS, GEORGE | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 08/22/2023 |
| DAVIS, MELISSA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/18/2018 |
| NORTON, MARK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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 255352. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-18, 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.