Reginald P White Nursing Facility
1451 North Lakeland Drive, Meridian, MS 39307 · Government - State · 70 certified beds · (601) 581-8500 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607, F0609) — most recent Oct 2025
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- inspectors recorded 4 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,364 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-12)
- 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 |
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 4 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.1% | 20.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.8% | 1.6% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.7% | 19.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.9% | 23.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.0% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.1% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 52.6% | 21.7% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.28 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.68 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.03 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 70 beds and averages 63.0 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 7 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 7.04 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.15 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 5.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.67 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.01 to 1.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-02-12 · 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 observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a staff member for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents. Resident #1. Resident #1 was physically abused on 12/31/24 when a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 dragged him by his shirt, the collar, and the shoulders of his jacket up the hallway into Resident #1's room. One nurse observed the abuse and failed to intervene, allowing the abuse to escalate. The facility's failure to protect Resident #1 from abuse placed this resident and all residents in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) that began on 12/31/24. The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ and SQC on 2/11/25 at 4:45 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 1/7/25, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past-Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement its abuse policy, allowing an abusive act to occur without staff intervening or prompt reporting for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents. Resident #1. Resident #1 was physically abused on 12/31/24 when Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 dragged him by his shirt, the collar, and the shoulders of his jacket up the hallway into Resident #1 room. One nurse observed the abuse and failed to intervene, allowing the abuse to escalate. The facility's failure to implement abuse policies and protect Resident #1 from physical abuse and the facility's failure to intervene placed this resident and all residents in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC). The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ and SQC on 2/11/25 at 4:45 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 1/7/25, the SA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report abuse in a timely manner for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents. Resident #1. Resident #1 was physically abused on 12/31/24 when a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 dragged him by his shirt, the collar, and the shoulders of his jacket up the hallway into Resident #1 room. One nurse observed the abuse and failed to report it to the Director of Nursing (DON) or other staff. The facility's failure to report Resident #1's abuse placed this resident and all residents in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) which began on 12/31/24. The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ and SQC on 2/11/25 at 4:45 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 1/7/25, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past-Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 1/8/25. Findings include: A review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-02-12 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement comprehensive care plan interventions for a resident with behaviors for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents. Resident #1. Resident #1 was physically abused on 12/31/24 when Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 dragged him by his shirt, the collar, and the shoulders of his jacket up the hallway into Resident #1 room. One nurse observed the abuse and failed to intervene, allowing the abuse to escalate. The facility's failure to implement the care plan interventions placed this resident and all residents in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) that began on 12/31/24. The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ on 2/11/25 at 4:45 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 1/7/25, the SA determined the IJ to be Past-Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 1/8/25, prior to the SA's entrance on 2/10/25. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-22 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from neglect when two (2) staff members completed a resident transfer with a mechanical lift without using the required four (4) staff members for resident safety, which resulted in the resident falling backward for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents. Resident #1. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Suspicion of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Injuries of Unknown Origin, And/or Misappropriation of Funds/Property To Individuals Receiving Services/Residents, revised January 2024, revealed, .It is the policy.to affirm that all Individuals Receiving Services (IRS)/Residents have a right to be free from.neglect.Definitions.Neglect: The failure to supply an IRS with food, shelter, clothing, or other services necessary to maintain physical and mental health. A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 7/31/23 with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-22 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan interventions related to transferring a resident with a Hoyer (type of mechanical lift) for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for care plan implementation. (Resident #1)Findings include:A review of the facility's policy Interdisciplinary Care Plan Team, dated August 2024, revealed, .The purpose of the team is to define and coordinate the treatment for each resident. A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 7/31/23 with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/25/25 revealed Resident#1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 09, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. A record review of the Physician Order Report revealed Resident #1 had an order, dated 7/3/25 for Transfer using Hoyer lift with 4 (four) person asst (assistance) to include nurse and 3 CNA's.A record review of 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 · E2025-05-29 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
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's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee failed to sustain corrective actions to prevent recurrence of previously cited deficiencies, specifically, the facility was cited for failing to maintain infection control practices during an annual recertification survey on 1/11/2024 and was cited again for the same deficiency during the current survey, demonstrating that QAPI failed to sustain ongoing monitoring and oversight to prevent recurrence for one (1) of three (3) deficiencies cited. (F880) Findings Include: A review of the facility's Quality Assurance document (undated) revealed, .The Outcome Services Division will .Periodically assess information based on established indicators, taking action to solve problems and pursue opportunities to improve quality . Record review of the Provider History Profile revealed the facility received a citation for F880-Infection Prevention & Control for the survey date of 1/11/2024. Record review of the CMS-2567 (a record that identifies 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 · Ecited before2025-05-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection prevention and control practices for two (2) of 18 sampled residents, Resident #13 and Resident #45. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Registered Nurse (RN) #2 performed hand hygiene and donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while administering medications through a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube for Resident #13 who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and failed to ensure Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 1 followed EBP and glove-changing protocols during wound care for Resident #45. The scope/severity for F880 was increased to E due to previous citation on the annual recertification survey on 1/11/24. Findings included: A review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Protocol (undated), revealed, 1. Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are required for certain resident categories .3. For residents for whom EBP is indicated, EBP is employed when performing the following high-contact…
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 · D2025-05-29 · 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, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nursing services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice by not verifying Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) placement prior to administering medications for one (1) of four (4) residents observed for medication administration. Resident #13. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Tube Enteral Nutrition, revised 10/24, revealed, The purpose of this protocol is to establish general guidelines for the use of tube enteral feedings for residents/Individuals Receiving Services (IRS) with a functioning Gastrointestinal Tract . On 5/29/25 at 9:23 AM, during an observation of medication administration via PEG tube, Registered Nurse (RN) #2 administered MiraLAX, potassium chloride, and ibuprofen to Resident #13 without verifying PEG tube placement prior to administration. On 5/29/25 at 10:40 AM, during an interview, RN #2 confirmed she had not verified PEG tube placement before administering medications. RN #2 acknowledged that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-01-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to record daily temperatures for refrigerators and a freezer for the last six (6) days prior to survey entrance on 01/08/24 and failed to date and label stored food in the facility refrigerator for one (1) of two (2) kitchen observations. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 50 of 59 residents in the facility. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Food and Nutrition Services, dated January 2023, revealed, .The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the creation and maintenance of an environment that is physically and bacteriologically safe for the storage, preparation, serving, and disposal of food .Procedure . (1) Food is stored in the original packaging and is properly labeled .B. Food Handling and Storage (1) Food will be held at the appropriate temperature to maintain quality and prevent the growth of harmful bacteria. (a) Immediately upon receipt, cold foods will be…
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 · D2024-01-11 · 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 observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a dignified dining experience for (1) one of seven (7) resident dining observations. (Resident #160) Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Rights and Responsibilities of Residents, revised October 2023, revealed, .It is the policy of (Proper Name) to protect and support the fundamental human, civil, and constitutional rights of each resident .Procedure . (10) Treated with respect and full recognition of their dignity and individuality . During an interview and observation on 1/8/24 at 12:05 PM, Resident #160 was in her room and had not received her meal tray. She stated that her roommate had received her meal tray and had already finished eating lunch. Resident #160 said that for the last week, her tray has been served about an hour later than her roommate, and she was unsure as to why this has occurred. She expressed that she did not believe it was right that she had to watch…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-11 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection as evidenced by staff failing to correctly wear a face mask on one (1) of four (4) days of survey and failed to perform hand hygiene during wound care for one (1) of five (5) wounds observed. (Resident # 57) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Pandemic Influenza/Coronavirus Disease 2019- Infection Control Practices, revised September 2023, revealed .It is the policy of (Proper Name) to control and prevent pandemic influenza/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Individuals Receiving Services (IRS)/residents, employees, and visitors by providing guidelines for infection control practices.Procedure: A.) The primary strategies for preventing COVID-19 are: (2) Use of infection control measures to prevent transmission . An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) upon entrance to the facility on 1/08/24 at 11:05 AM, she revealed the facility was in an active COVID-19 outbreak with one positive resident on 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 · D2022-10-20 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had readily available and reasonable access to their personal funds, seven (7) days a week, for four (4) of 15 residents sampled. Resident #8, Resident #10, Resident #34, and Resident #45 Findings Included: A review of the facility's Money Policy for Individuals Receiving Services/Residents, revised March 2020, revealed, . F. Money Call is the time established by the Division Director or Fiscal Services Director, during which, an IRS (Individual Receiving Service)/resident is distributed money from his/her RFMS (Resident Fund Management Service) account, held by their designated money custodian .G. Money day is one of the scheduled days when Patient Accounts issues cash and checks from the (Proper Name of Facility) Resident Trustee Account to the money custodians . Resident #8 On 10/17/22 at 12:53 PM, during an interview with Resident #8, he stated that they can only get their personal money on Tuesdays…
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 · D2022-10-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately code the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) related to a resident's reentry into the facility from an acute care hospital for one (1) of 17 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Resident #46. Findings Included: A review of the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) policy, revised August 2022, revealed, .2. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to .establish the framework for organizing an individual plan of care . A record review of the CMS's (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Version 3.0 Manual, dated October 2019, revealed, .A1800: Entered From .Item Rational .Understanding the setting that the individual was in immediately prior to facility .reentry informs care planning and may also inform discharge planning and discussions . A record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #46 on 9/29/21 with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Unspecified Convulsions. A record review of the facility's document, Notice…
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.
- No harm found · C2022-10-20 · tag F0576 — widespreadEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide mail delivery on Saturdays for three (3) of 15 sampled residents and had the potential to affect 57 of 57 residents residing in the facility. Resident #10, Resident #45, and Resident #46 Findings Included: Review of the facility's policy Mail Distribution, with a revision date of May 2021, revealed, 1. Policy It is the policy of (Proper Name of Facility) that Mail Room staff will distribute and process all internal, external, and accountable mail that is delivered to the .Nursing Home Division (NHD) .9. USPS (United State Postal Service) delivers all NHD residents incoming mail to the facility mailbox on Saturday to ensure residents receive mail six days a week. Mail will be sorted and disturbed to the residents and or the residents Social Worker . Resident #10 Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #10 was admitted by the facility on 5/3/22 with diagnoses including Epilepsy and Bipolar Disorder. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference…
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
$10,364 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $5,182 — penalty dated 2025-02-12
- $5,182 — penalty dated 2025-02-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in MS
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 25A123. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, 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.