No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Walter B Crook Nursing Facility

840 North Oak Avenue, Ruleville, MS 38771 · Government - State · 60 certified beds · (662) 756-2711 Medicaid only — no Medicare

Call the home — (662) 756-2711 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited Dec 20223 actual-harm citations
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 3 actual-harm citations
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 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 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

Hospital
1/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
840 N Oak Ave · (601) 354-4488 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Grocery
650 North Oak Ave
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 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 held steady at 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased24.6%20.5%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.8%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder5.1%1.4%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection5.2%2.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%1.6%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.1%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.2%19.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.9%23.8%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.7%6.3%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control11.5%20.7%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table12.1%21.7%17.1%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

0.35U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.20hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot 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 SNFnot 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 identifiednot 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 staynot 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 worsenednot 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 hospitalizationnot 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 SNFsnot 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

0.57
RN hours/ resident / day
1.32
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.91
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.80
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
27.0%
Total nursing turnover
0.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 56.3 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.91 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.01 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% 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

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-13)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-02-28)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-11-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to identify, accurately assess, document, and implement treatment for a pressure injury for one (1) of 55 residents. This failure resulted in an avoidable full-thickness tissue loss wound not being treated after identification for ten (10) days because the physician order was not implemented for Resident #5. Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Wound Care Policy and Protocol dated 1/24/25, revealed under, 2. Policy Statement: Proper name of the facility is committed to 1. Proactive wound prevention through comprehensive assessments. 2. Prompt identification and treatment of wounds. 3. Use of advanced wound care techniques. 4. Minimizing infection risks through proper dressing techniques. 5. Educating staff and residents on wound prevention and care. The documented practice did not reflect the policy requirements for proactive identification and timely intervention.An observation and interview with Resident #5 on 11/11/25 at 1:16PM revealed he was lying…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-02-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 promote the healing of existing pressure injuries as evidenced by failure to perform hand hygiene during wound care. Resident #34 currently has a foul odor and purulent discharge to facility acquired pressure wounds of the right lower leg and right heel with a history of recent multiple pressure ulcer infections. Resident #42 has two (2) facility acquired pressure ulcers with a history of pressure ulcer infection. This is for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident #34 and Resident #42). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Wound Care, revised October 2010, revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing. Steps in procedure: 2.) Wash and dry hands thoroughly.4.) Put on exam gloves, loosen tape, and remove dressing.5.) Pull gloves over dressing and discard. Wash and dry hands thoroughly .6.) Put…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-02-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 perform hand hygiene during wound care, Foley and suprapubic catheter care, and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube care (Resident's #34 and #42) Resident #34 currently has a foul odor and purulent discharge from facility acquired pressure wounds of the right lower leg and right heel with a history of recent multiple pressure ulcer infections. Resident #42 has two (2) facility acquired pressure ulcers with a history of pressure ulcer infection. This is for two (2) of 10 residents observed during direct patient care. Resident's #34 and 42 Cross reference F686 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Standard Precautions, effective 01/01/2020, revealed, Policy: Standard Precautions are designed for care of all patients in facilities, regardless of diagnosis or presumed infection status, to reduce the risk of transmission from both recognized and unrecognized sources of infection.Standard…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-13 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately code a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (1) of 16 MDS assessments reviewed. (Resident #6) Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Assessments and the Care Delivery Process with revised date 12/2016, revealed, Comprehensive assessments will be conducted to .Define current treatments and services . Record review of Resident #6's quarterly MDS assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 10/14/25, noted that Section N - Medications, N0350 revealed the resident had received insulin injections for one (1) day during the last seven (7) days. Record review of Resident #6's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 10/1/2025-10/31/2025, revealed Resident #6 did not have an order for insulin, nor did she receive an insulin injection. Record review of Resident #6's Immunizations revealed Resident #6 received an influenza vaccination on 10/8/25. An…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a plan of care that included nail care for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for two (2) of 16 sampled residents, (Resident #8 and #46); and failed to implement comprehensive care plans for two (2) of 16 sampled residents. (Resident #2 and #7) Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with a revision date of December 2016, revealed under Policy Statement .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Resident #2 and Resident #7 Record review of Resident #2's Care Plans revealed under, Focus: I am at risk for adverse effects r/t (related to) use of psychotropic medications for a dx (diagnosis) of Major Depressive d/o (disorder) and anxiety d/o (disorder). Also revealed…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide proper nail care for two (2) of sixteen 16 sampled residents. (Resident #8 and #46) Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living, Supporting revised March 2018, revealed .Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living revealed under Fingernails/Toenails, Care of with a revision date of February 2018 states, The purposes of this procedure are to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections. Resident #8 During an observation and interview with Resident #8 on 11/11/2025 at 11:46 AM and again on 11/12/25 at 10:15 AM, revealed the resident had approximately three-fourths (3/4) inch long, jagged fingernails with brown substance…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide bowel and bladder training services to reduce incontinence for one (1) of 16 sampled residents. (Resident #10)Findings include: Review of Facility Statement Regarding Bowel and Bladder Policy with no date revealed the facility did not have a policy for Bowel and Bladder. Record review of Resident #10's Bowel/Bladder Screenings dated 8/15/24 and 11/8/24 revealed Resident #10 was a good candidate for retraining. The Bowel/Bladder Screenings dated 2/3/25, 4/29/25, and 7/23/25, revealed Resident #10 was a candidate for schedule toileting. An interview on 11/12/2025 at 4:00 PM, with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the facility did not currently have a bowel/bladder (B/B) toileting program. They stated that after the screenings are completed that a Registered Nurse (RN) reviews the screening and makes a decision or recommendation accordingly. Record review of Resident #10's plan of care, I sometimes have trouble…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-13 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    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 monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #2 and #7 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use revised 12/16, revealed under, Policy Statement: Antipsychotic medications may be considered for residents with dementia but only after medical, physical, functional, psychological, emotional psychiatric, social and environmental causes of behavioral symptoms have been identified and addressed. Also revealed under, Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 17. Nursing staff shall monitor for and report any of the following side effects and adverse consequences of antipsychotic medications to the attending physician . Record review of Resident #2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order dated 9/11/25, Quetiapine Fumarate (antipsychotic) Tab (tablet) 25 milligrams (MG) give one (1) tablet orally three times a day related to Major Depressive Disorder.…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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, staff interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained for two (1) of three (3) care opportunities. (Resident #13) Findings include:A review of the policy titled, ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS (EBP) effective 4/1/24 revealed, For residents whom EBP are indicated, EBP is employed when performing the following high-contact resident care activities: Device care of use: Central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, etc.During an observation of medication administration on 11/12/2025 at 9:08 AM for Resident #13 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, it was observed that the nurse failed to use EBP while administering Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) medications. During an interview on 11/12/25 at 9:25 AM with LPN #3, she confirmed that EBP should have been used during medication administration for residents with PEG tubes. She further stated that EBP was ordered to help prevent the spread of infection and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-12-08 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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, staff and resident interviews, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to keep residents free from physical restraints for one (1) of 20 residents reviewed during the survey. Resident #2 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Restraints - Definitions, dated 12/1/14, revealed: 1. Physical restraints Any manual method or physical or mechanical device material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the resident cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement for normal access to one's body. 2. Side Rails a. Side rail use is addressed in the same manner as any other restraint. b. side rails used as an enabler must be supported by documentation. c. The use of side rails as restraints is prohibited unless they are necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. d. Residents who attempt to exit a bed through between over or around side rails are at risk of injury or death. e. The potential for serious injury is more likely…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-12-08 · tag F0638 — isolated
    Assure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, within 120 days, for 1 of 20 residents reviewed in the sample for MDS Assessments. Resident #38 FACILITY Resident Assessment Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessments, revised November 2019, revealed Policy Statement, A comprehensive assessment of every resident's needs is made at intervals designated by OBRA and PPS requirements. 2. Quarterly Assessment - Conducted not less frequently than three (3) months following the most recent OBRA assessment of any type. An interview on 12/07/22 at 01:30 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse revealed she neglected to open the Quarterly MDS Assessment for the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 10/18/22 for Resident #38. She revealed she had Resident #38's name written in on the MDS calendar, on 10/18/22, to remind her to open the Quarterly MDS Assessment for completion. She also revealed there was documentation entered in the Departmental Notes in the electronic health record…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement care plans for the use of side rails for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for side rails. Resident #17 Findings include: Review of the facility care plan policy with a revision date of December 2016, titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered 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. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. An observation, on 12/05/22 at 02:47 PM revealed Resident #17 in bed with all four side rails up. An observation, on 12/06/22 at 02:30 PM revealed Resident #17 in bed with all four…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-02-28 · tag F0640 — pattern
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to complete and submit a Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment timely in accordance with the current federal and state submission timeframes for one (1) of 18 resident's MDS assessments reviewed. Resident #28 Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Resident Assessments, revised [DATE], revealed, Policy Interpretation and Implementation, 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessment and reviews according to the following requirements . (5) Discharge Assessment-Conducted when a resident is discharged from the facility. Record review of Resident # 28's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Resident #28 was discharged on [DATE] due to death in the facility. During an interview with the MDS nurse on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, she revealed…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · Bcited before2024-02-28 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure 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 ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflects the resident's status when the Discharge MDS was inaccurately coded for (1) one of 18 MDS assessments reviewed. (Resident #62) Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Resident Assessments, revised November 2019, revealed Policy Interpretation and Implementation, 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments . A review of the Departmental notes for Resident #62 dated 12/21/23 revealed the resident was discharged home at her request. Review of Resident #62's Discharge MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 12/21/23 revealed Section A Item A2105 Discharge status was coded as the resident was discharged to a short term general hospital. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Nurse on 02/28/24 at 11:14 AM, she revealed that Resident #62 was discharged home not to the hospital and confirmed the Discharge MDS was…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Mississippi
$9,581/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,885/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,369/mo
Assisted living

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 25A422. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-13, 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.

What to do next