Quitman County Health & Rehab LLC
350 Getwell Drive, Marks, MS 38646 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (662) 326-3690 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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 | 25.0% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 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 | 1.7% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 19.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.2% | 23.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 6.3% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 32.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 2.43 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.71 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 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 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 46.1 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.63 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.07 on weekdays — 31% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-29 · 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, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to implement an Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care plan related to removal of facial hair (Resident #3) and nail care (Resident #44) for two (2) of 13 sampled residents. Findings Included: Record review of the facility policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with revision date of March 2022 revealed, . A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Resident #3 Record review of Resident #3's Care Plan with a problem onset date of 04/19/2022 revealed .requires assistance with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) . Approaches . Total assistance x 1 staff for all ADLs (Bed Mobility, Transfers, Locomotion, Dressing, Eating, Toileting, Hygiene, Bathing) . On 08/26/24 at 12:14 PM, an observation of Resident #3 revealed her sitting in her geri chair in the hall and she had scattered white facial hairs above her…
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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to verify the documented advance directives signed by the Resident Representative (RR) were the preferences of a cognitively intact resident for one (1) of 16 Advance Directives reviewed. Resident #148. Findings Included: Review of the facility policy, titled Advanced Directives, revealed .Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Upon admission, the resident will be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate and advance directive if he or she chooses to do so .4. If the resident becomes able to receive and understand this information later, he or she will be provided with the same written materials as described above, even if his or her legal representative has already been given the information . Record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of [DATE] revealed an order dated [DATE] Code Status; DNR (Do Not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care related to removal of facial hair (Resident #3) and nail care (Resident #44) for two (2) of 13 sampled residents. Findings Included: Record review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL)s with revision date of March 2018, revealed Policy Statement: Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene . Resident #3 An observation on 08/26/24 at 12:14 PM, revealed Resident #3 sitting in her geri chair in the hall and she had scattered white facial hairs above her upper lip and two white chin hairs that were approximately one (1) inch long. An observation on 08/27/24 at 8:45 AM, revealed Resident #3 lying in her room asleep. She had scattered white facial hairs above her upper lip and two chin hairs that were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-13 · 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 record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure kitchen sanitation was maintained in a manner that meets professional standards for 44 of 49 residents whose meals are prepared in the kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Machine Warewashing, with a revision date of 6/14, revealed, .Procedure .3. The dishmachine operator documents the machine temperature and concentration of the sanitizing solution for warewashing after each meal on the Dishmachine Temperature/Chemical Log . Review of the facility policy titled, Manual Warewashing, with a revision date of 10/17, revealed, .Procedure . 6. The concentration of the sanitizing solution is checked with an appropriate test kit when the sink is filled .9. The employee using the three compartment sink documents temperature and concentration. A record review of the July Dish Machine and Pot/Pan Sink form revealed that there was no documentation of temperatures or chemical sanitation levels for the low temperature dish machine or the pot/pan sink from 7/1/23 through…
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 · E2023-07-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to discard out of date Influenza vaccines and failed to secure injectable Lorazepam in a locked secured box in the refrigerator for (1) one of (1) one medication storage room. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Storage of Medications with a revised date of April 2007, revealed, Policy Statement The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner .Policy Interpretation and Implementation .The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed .Medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurse's station or other secured location . An observation on 07/12/23 at 03:50 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed 10 Fluzone single dose vaccines with an expiration date of 5/20/23, 11 single dose flu vaccines with an expiration date of 5/11/22, one (1) multidose five…
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 before2023-07-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to implement the care plan for impaired respiratory function for (1) one of 16 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #10 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016 revealed, Policy Statement A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 8. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: b. Describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . An observation of Resident #10 on 7/11/23 at 11:39 AM, revealed resident receiving oxygen (O2) via nasal canula and the O2 tubing and humidifier bottle with no date. A record review of the care plan for Resident #10 with a problem onset date of 3/22/22, revealed…
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 · D2023-07-13 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to sign out controlled medications prior to administration to a resident for (1) one of (6) six residents reviewed during medication pass. Resident #29. Findings include: An observation, on 7/12/23 at 9:20 AM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 set up medications for Resident #29. The medications included Lacosamide, Xanax, and Norco. LPN #1 did not sign out the controlled medications prior to administering them. An interview on 7/12/23 at 9:25 AM, with LPN #1 revealed that she really did not know when she was supposed to sign them (controlled medications) out. She stated that she does it after she gives them in case the resident does not take it. An interview on 07/13/23 at 08:30 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that all controlled medications should be signed out when the nurse punches it out. If the nurse waits to sign out controlled medications, she could forget to do it and the count would be wrong or could lead to drug diversion. Record review of the July 2023 Physician Orders…
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 · D2023-07-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to label and date oxygen tubing and a humidifier bottle (Aquapack) for (1) one of (7) seven residents receiving oxygen therapy. Resident #10. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, with a revised date of October 2022, revealed Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration .Equipment and Supplies: The following equipment and supplies will be necessary when performing this procedure .6. Label oxygen supplies (tubing, mask. Etc.) with date and initial. Supplies should be changed at least weekly while in use . On 7/11/23 at 11:39 AM, an observation of Resident #10 revealed the resident was receiving oxygen (O2) per nasal canula and the oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle were not dated. An observation of Resident #10's O2 tubing and humidifier bottle with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 7/12/23 at 8:30 AM, confirmed there was not a date on the oxygen tubing or humidifier bottle. State Agency…
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 before2023-07-13 · 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 observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to perform hand hygiene upon removing gloves, failed to dispose of a pill after it fell on the medication cart, and failed to use a barrier when administering eye drops for (2) two of (6) six residents reviewed during medication pass. Resident #15 and #29. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised 2015, revealed, Policy Statement This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors .6. Wash hands with soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: .m. After removing gloves . Review of the facility policy titled, Installation of Eye Drops, undated, revealed, Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for installation of eye drops to treat medical conditions, eye…
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 before2021-09-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to perform medication administration in a manner to prevent the likelihood of the spread of infection, as evidenced by failure to disinfect a plastic tray barrier and stethoscope, and to perform hand hygiene appropriately between residents during medication administration observations for three (3) of six (6) residents observed during medication administration. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications revised December 2012 revealed Medications shall be administered in a safe .manner . 22. Staff shall follow established facility infection control procedures (e.g. handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications, as applicable. Record review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications through an Enteral Tube revised March 2015 revealed .Steps in the Procedure 1. Wash your hands .34. Wash your hands . Record review of the facilities Infection Control Guidelines for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONDADO HEALTH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 01/01/2016 |
| MEDIKEY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 01/01/2016 |
| MILES HEALTHCARE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 01/01/2016 |
| DELANEY, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 23% | since 01/01/2016 |
| PACE, GARRY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 23% | since 01/01/2016 |
| WALLER, ROBERT | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| CAMPBELL, ASHLEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| BEEBE, HAROLD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| SHELTON, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| LONG TERM CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $586K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 255344. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-29, 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.