Picayune Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center
1620 Read Road, Picayune, MS 39466 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (601) 798-1811 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0609) — most recent Feb 2026
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 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 (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $34,411 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-05)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 4 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 3 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 | 25.6% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 2.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.5% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.1% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 6.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.6% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.8% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.9% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.79 | 2.43 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.92 | 2.86 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
39.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 66 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 36 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | 39.8%CMS range 30.0–50.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.2%CMS range 9.9–17.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 52.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 38.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 92.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 11.1%CMS range 7.0–16.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 100.6 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.10 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-02-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to protect residents from neglect when staff failed to ensure safe transfers for a resident who required a mechanical lift, failed to ensure a licensed nurse timely assessed the resident following a fall, failed to initiate timely neurological monitoring, and failed to timely notify the physician of the fall and subsequent head injury for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for falls. Resident #1. The facility's failure to ensure appropriate post-fall assessment, monitoring, communication, and timely medical evaluation resulted in serious harm to Resident #1 and placed other residents with falls at risk for serious harm, serious impairment, or death.The situation was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) that began on 1/20/26, when Resident #1 fell and was manually lifted back into bed without a licensed nurse assessment and without timely initiation of neurological monitoring or physician notification following a…
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 before2025-03-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, job description review and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse from a staff member for one (1) of 21 sampled residents. (Resident #17) Resident #17 was verbally abused and threatened on 2/8/25 when Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #1 used profanity in an argument and aimed a spray bottle of chemical cleaner toward him. The facility's failure to protect Resident #17 resulted in his reporting he felt nervous and afraid. Additionally, the facility's failure to immediately remove CNA #1 from the facility placed this resident and other residents at risk for similar abuse. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC). The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ and SQC on 3/12/25 at 2:15 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 02/12/25, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past-Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 02/13/25 prior to the SA's entrance 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 · J2025-03-13 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within the required two (2) hour timeframe for one (1) of 21 sampled residents. Resident #17. Resident #17 was verbally abused and threatened on 2/8/25 when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 used profanity in an argument and aimed a spray bottle of chemical cleaner toward him. This was witnessed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1. This occurred on 02/08/25, however, the facility did not report it to the State Agency (SA) until 02/12/25, delaying the facility's ability to protect the resident from further mistreatment. The facility's failure to ensure immediate reporting increased the risk of harm which left Resident #17 and other residents in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC). The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ and SQC on 03/12/25 at 2:15 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based 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 · Ecited before2025-03-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 the resident's right to reasonable accommodation as evidenced by a call light that was not within reach for one (1) of twenty-one (21) sampled residents, Resident #39. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Call System, dated 3/28/23, revealed, . Residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance . Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance . On 03/11/2025 at 11:38 AM, during an observation, Resident #39's call light was observed draped over a shelf and out of reach. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 confirmed the call light was not within reach of Resident #39. On 03/12/2025 at 10:08 AM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated that call lights are supposed to be left within reach of the resident after each visit, and that CNAs are expected to make rounds every two (2) hours. On 03/13/2025 at 8:51 AM, during an interview, CNA #2 stated 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 · E2025-03-13 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 the residents' right to a comfortable, homelike environment related to the facility being an uncomfortably cold temperature for five (5) of 21 sampled residents, with the potential to affect all 99 residents in the facility. Residents #82, Resident #43, Resident #45, Resident #5, and Resident # 34. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights, revised April 2017, revealed, .Residents shall .r. Live in a physical environment which ensures their physical and emotional security and well-being . Resident #82 On 03/11/2025 at 9:30 AM, during an interview and observation, the room was cold and Resident #82 stated that it is always cold in her room. She was observed wearing long sleeves, a blouse, a jacket, and was covered with a blanket. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #82 on 06/07/2024 with current diagnoses including Alzheimer's…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise the comprehensive care plan to include the use of zinc oxide, as per a physician's order for one (1) of 21 care plans reviewed. (Resident #22) Findings included: A review of the facility's Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 2/24/25, 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. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .13. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change . On 03/11/2025 at 12:56 PM, during an observation of incontinence care, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #8 applied zinc oxide to the resident's buttocks after providing perineal care. A record review of Resident #22's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, I have potential for impairment of my skin integrity related to weakness,…
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 · D2025-03-13 · 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, record review, and the facility's Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) job description review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards practices were maintained when a CNA applied a medicated cream to a resident during one (1) of two (2) incontinent resident care observations. (Resident #22) Findings Include: A record review of the facility's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Job Description dated March 2017, revealed, .Function: Cares for Residents under the direction and supervision of a registered nurse or a licensed practical/vocational nurse . A record review of a letter from the State Board of Nursing, dated 7/15/2005, revealed, .medication administration may only be delegated to another registered nurse or licensed practical nurse and not an unlicensed person. This would include medicated ointments, lotions and protective barriers, regardless of skin integrity . In an observation of incontinence care on 3/11/25 at 12:56 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7/MDS Nurse gave CNA #8 zinc oxide cream to put on the resident's buttocks.…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the cooler and freezer were wrapped, covered, and dated and ensure serving bowls were cleaned appropriately for one (1) of three (3) days of survey. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Food Storage: Cold Foods dated 02/2023 revealed, .All Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, will be appropriately stored . Procedures . 5. All foods will be stored wrapped or covered in containers, labeled and dated . A review of the facility's policy titled Ware Washing, dated 02/2023 revealed, .All dishware, serviceware, and utensils will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . On 03/11/2025 at 8:43 AM, during an observation of the kitchen and interview with Dietary Manager (DM) #1 revealed: Walk-In Cooler #1, there was an opened cheesecake box, which did not indicate the date opened, and the cheesecake was not fully wrapped or covered in the container. In Freezer #1, an opened frozen mixed vegetables container and an opened box…
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 · D2025-03-13 · 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 observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices by failing to prevent cross-contamination of perineal wipes during perineal care for one (1) of four (4) residents observed. Resident #58. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Perineal Care, revised 04/16/2024, revealed, .The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident . to prevent infections and skin irritation . On 03/13/2025 at 9:18 AM, during an observation of perineal care of Resident #58, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)#3, assisted by CNA #5, gathered supplies, sanitized her hands, and donned gloves. CNA #3 removed six (6) premoistened wipes from the pack and used the wipes to clean the front area of the resident. The resident was assisted to her left side and then CNA #3 pulled six (6) additional wipes from the pack, touching the package with contaminated gloves, and then continued perineal care in the buttocks area. Resident #58 had a bowel movement during care and CNA…
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 · E2023-08-31 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor 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 record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to document in the medical record discussions regarding a resident's decision to accept or decline assistance with formulating an Advanced Directive (AD) for five (5) of 25 resident records reviewed. Resident #6, Resident #34, Resident #90, Resident #93, and Resident #96. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Advance Directives, revised 09/2022, revealed, The resident has the right to formulate an advance directive .If the Resident does not have an Advance Directive 1. If the resident or representative indicates that he or she has not established advance directives, the facility staff will offer assistance in establishing advance directives. a. The resident or representative is given the option to accept or decline assistance .b. Nursing staff will document in the medical record the offer to assist and the residents decision to accept or decline assistance . A review of the medical record for Resident #6,…
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 before2023-08-31 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 call light was accessible to a resident in her room for one (1) of 25 sampled residents. Resident #47 Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy Answering the Call Light, revised September 2022, revealed The purpose of this procedure is to ensure timely responses to the resident's requests and needs. General Guidelines . 5. Ensure that the call light is accessible to the resident when in bed, from the toilet, from the shower or bathing facility and from the floor . On 08/28/2023 at 10:58 AM, during an observation, Certified Nurse Aide #3 (CNA) pushed Resident #47, who was sitting in a shower chair, into her room and explained to the resident that she would go get her CNA and they would be right back. CNA #3 instructed Resident #47 to not try to get up and she left the room. Resident #47 was covered with a shower blanket while sitting in the shower chair near the bed. The call light was on the resident's bed but was out of reach for the resident and the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and the facility policy review the facility failed to implement a care plan to ensure the call light was within reach for (1) of 25 sampled residents. Resident #47 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with a reviewed date of January 2023, revealed A comprehensive, person-centered care plan . to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is .implemented for each resident . A record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, undated, revealed Focus: I am at risk for falls .Interventions/Tasks .Be sure my call light is within reach . During an observation on 08/28/2023 at 10:58 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #3 (CNA) pushed Resident #47, who was sitting in a shower chair, into her room. The call light was on the resident's bed but was out of reach for the resident and the resident was unable to move the shower chair to be able to access the call light. After three (3) minutes,…
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 before2020-01-09 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews and the facility policy review, the facility failed to accommodate Resident #87's needs in creating an individualized, home-like environment, as evidenced by not providing him access to his room and bathroom for one (1) of four (4) days of observations. Findings include Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, no date, revealed residents will be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his dignity, and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his personal needs. During the initial tour of the facility, on 1/6/2020 at 10:26 AM, an observation revealed Resident #87 was in a wheel chair, trying to propel himself into his room. The door to the resident's room would only open approximately eight (8) inches due to the door was being blocked by the end of the D bed that was positioned closest to the room door. During an interview, on 1/6/2020 at 10:28 AM, Resident #87 confirmed he was having a problem not being able to get back into his room. Resident #87 stated, It happens all the time.…
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 · D2020-01-09 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 provide privacy for Resident #34, during an invasive procedure, for one (1) of three (3) resident blood draw observations. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, no date, revealed residents will be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his dignity, and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his personal needs. During an observation, on 1/6/2020 at 10:06 AM, it was revealed Resident #34 was sitting in his wheel chair next to his bed having his blood drawn, by the Phlebotomist, with the privacy curtain open. Resident #34's roommate was on his side of the room, but able to view the Phlebotomist perform the blood draw on Resident #34. During an interview, on 1/6/2020 at 10:16 AM, Resident #34 stated that he wanted the curtain pulled between him and his roommate while he was getting his blood drawn. Resident #34 stated he would have appreciated having privacy. During an interview, on 1/8/2020 at 1:55 PM,…
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 · D2020-01-09 · 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 staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to document accurate information on the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #28, for one (1) of 21 MDSs reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment Instrument, revised September 2010, revealed all persons who have completed any portions of the MDS Resident Assessment Form must sign such document attesting to the accuracy of such information. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), under Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, Section A1500, revealed the question, Is the resident currently considered by the state level II process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition? and No was answered. Under Active Diagnoses, Section I , the diagnoses that were checked included Schizophrenia, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, and Depression. Review of the Medical Diagnosis from admission, on 10/23/19, for Resident #28 revealed diagnoses included Schizophrenia, Depression, Parkinson's Disease and Dementia…
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 · D2020-01-09 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the Level I Pre-admission Screening Application for Long Term Care (PASARR) for Resident #28, for one (1) of 21 resident PASARRs reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility's typed statement, signed and dated by the Administrator on 1/9/2020, revealed the facility follows the state regulations regarding the PASSAR. On 01/09/2020 at 11:01 AM, in an interview with the Director of Business Development/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, she stated she was responsible for completing the Pre-admission Screening Application for Long Term Care (PASSAR) on new admissions only and confirmed she marked No for Resident # 28 when asked if they have a diagnosis of Mental Illness and stated she has Schizophrenia. LPN #1 confirmed Resident # 28 has not had a Level II screening since admission and confirmed the Level I was not complete. LPN #1 stated, It's plain as day, I messed up and confirmed the Level I PASSAR screen was incomplete. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #28, 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.
“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
$34,411 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $26,130 — penalty dated 2026-02-05
- $8,281 — penalty dated 2025-03-13
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NEXION HEALTH — 51 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
The other 50 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 50; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEXION HEALTH OF OHI INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/29/2018 |
| NEXION HEALTH LEASING, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/29/2018 |
| NEXION HEALTH, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/29/2018 |
| BOLT, BRETTON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2018 |
| KIRLEY, FRANCIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2018 |
| LADNER, KERI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| HERDRICH, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| LEE, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| OSWALD, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/24/2022 |
| REID, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/18/2018 |
| RINER, MEERA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| PIERCE, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/16/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $711K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Mississippi Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 255141. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-13, 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.