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

Yalobusha County Nursing Home

630 South Main Street, Water Valley, MS 38965 · Government - County · 122 certified beds · (662) 473-1411 Medicaid only — no Medicare

Call the home — (662) 473-1411 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Mar 20242 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 (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
712 S Main St · (662) 473-1140 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
327 S Main St · (662) 506-2201 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
323 S Main St · (662) 473-2751 · Call to confirm hours
Park
520 Baker St · 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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating2★
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 increased18.7%20.5%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.0%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.9%1.4%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.6%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 injury2.6%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened17.4%19.6%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication23.8%23.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.5%6.3%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control14.3%20.7%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.2%21.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%2.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine59.3%84.6%79.4%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.872.431.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.292.861.80better

* 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.

0.51U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.27hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
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

0.36
RN hours/ resident / day
1.27
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.56
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.19
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.16
RN hoursweekends
40.2%
Total nursing turnover
11.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 122 beds and averages 106.8 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 15 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 4.19 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.56 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.40 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-10-09)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2024-03-07)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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 before2025-02-24 · 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

    Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for the behavior of wandering for one (1) of four (4) resident care plans reviewed. Resident #1, who had documented wandering behaviors, wandered into a resident room and hit a resident, resulting in that resident sustain a nasal bone fracture. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy,with no revision date revealed, the facility shall develop a comprehensive care plan. The comprehensive care plan shall include but not limited to measurable goals with objectives that are measurable to meet the residents, medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs and shall be person-centered. Record review of Resident #1's care plans revealed there was not a care plan regarding wandering. Record review of Resident #1's Section C of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/18/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 4, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Section…

    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
  • Actual harm · G2025-02-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on staff and resident interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to reduce the risk of an accident/hazards when a resident with behaviors of wandering did not have any increased supervision/monitoring put in place resulting in the physical assault of a resident for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #1) Findings include: Review of a document on facility letterhead provided by the Administrator revealed, The facility does not have a policy that addresses resident supervision. Record review of the Facility Reported Incident revealed on 1/5/25 at approximately 8:00 - 8:30 PM, Resident #2 reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 that Resident #1 came in my room and was rumbling through my shirts and I told him to go on and he hit me in my face and then he did it about six more times. Resident #2 was unable to recall what time the incident occurred. On assessment by the Director of Nursing (DON) there was slight discoloration to inner corner of right eye and minimal swelling to right side of face around 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-10-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' food was stored, thawed and monitored under sanitary conditions for two (2) of four (4) kitchen tours. Findings Include Review of the facility policy titled, Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Checks with no revision date, revealed, The kitchen supervisor and/or the Dietary Manager shall check all refrigerator temperatures and freezer temperatures at least twice daily . Review of the facility policy titled, Food Preparation and Service' with no revision date, revealed, .Thawing Frozen Food 1. Foods will not be thawed at room temperature. Thawing procedures include. a. thawing in the refrigerator.b. completely submerging in cold running water.c. thawing in the microwave, then cooking and serving immediately.d. thawing as part of a continuous cooking process. An observation on 10/06/2025 at 10:30 AM, during the initial kitchen tour revealed there was no refrigerator temperature log for the month of October and approximately 200 raw chicken drumsticks were sitting directly in 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-09 · 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 observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for four (4) of 26 MDS assessments reviewed. Resident #10, #15, #16, and #92 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled MDS Assessment Accuracy and Correction undated, revealed, The facility shall submit a correct MDS assessment as required by scheduling requirements. The MDS shall be completed and verified by the Registered Nurse and to be accurate to the best of that nurse's knowledge . Resident #10 Record review of the Bowel and Bladder Program Screening dated 8/11/25, revealed Resident #10 always voids without incontinence, she never was incontinent of stool and that she was independent with toileting. Record review of the admission MDS assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/12/2025 revealed, under Section H - Bladder and Bowel, revealed Resident #10 was frequently incontinent of bladder and was occasionally incontinent of…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were invited and given the opportunity to participate in their Care Plan meetings for three (3) of five (5) residents reviewed for care planning. Resident #3, Resident #9, and Resident #38. Findings Include: Review of the undated facility policy titled Care Plan Meeting revealed, The MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator shall notify the resident/resident representative in writing or telephone of the upcoming care plan conference and The MDS coordinator shall make arrangements for each resident/representative to actively attend a care plan conference with IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) members if the resident/representative desires during a time that accommodates the resident/representative Resident #3 Record review of Care Plan Report for care conference review dated 8/4/25, revealed no signatures noted for resident or family indicating participation in care conference review. During an interview on 10/06/2025 at 10:26 AM, with Resident #3, she revealed that she had never been invited…

    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 · D2025-10-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access for two (2) of four (4) days of survey. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Cart Security/Medication Room Security undated, revealed, The nurse shall ensure the medication care always remains secured to prevent unauthorized entry. The medication cart shall be locked when not in use or within the nurse's reach . An observation and interview on 10/7/2025 at 11:37 AM, revealed an unattended medication cart in the South Hall with the drawers unlocked and no staff present in the immediate area. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 confirmed the cart should never be left unlocked and unattended because a resident could get into it. An observation and interview on 10/08/2025 at 11:20 AM, revealed an unattended medication cart at the D wing nurses station with the drawers unlocked and no staff present in the immediate area. An interview with LPN #2 confirmed…

    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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to allow a resident to exercise his right to take a shower as evidenced by the resident not being offered a shower for one (1) of 24 residents reviewed during survey. Resident #61. Findings Include. A review of the facility policy titled Resident's Rights with no revision date revealed Each and every resident has the right to .9. Receive adequate and appropriate health care and protective support services . An interview on 03/04/24 at 2:22 PM, with Resident #61 revealed that he gets a bed bath automatically without being asked about a shower and that he would love to have a shower and have water running on him. The resident revealed that he can't remember the last time he has had a shower. The resident revealed that he has asked for a shower before and was told that they don't have a chair to get him in there. An interview on 03/05/24 at 10:38 AM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 revealed that 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor 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 resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents code status on the advance directive matched the residents code status order on one (1) of 24 residents advanced directives reviewed. Resident #17. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled (Proper Name of Facility) Advanced Directive Policy , with no revision date, revealed, Purpose: To respect the resident's right to determine the course of treatment; to provide at the time of admission written information on rights under state law to make decisions regarding medical care, including the right to accept or refuse treatment and the right to formulate advance directives; to implement the requirements of the Patient Self-Determination Act; and to educate the public and staff regarding advance directives . A record review of Resident #17's Advance Directive in the electronic record revealed the resident's code status was Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). A record review of 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor 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, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean environment, as evidenced by a dirty wheelchair with torn armrest for Resident #10 and dirty privacy curtains for room numbers 118 and 120 for three (3) of four (4) survey days. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled Equipment Needs and Maintenance undated, revealed, The equipment shall be kept and maintained in good repair and optimal level of cleanliness. Equipment shall be monitored for cleanliness and good repair. Wheelchairs shall be cleaned on the night shift per the wheelchair washing schedule. Record review of facility policy titled, Resident Room Deep Cleaning undated, revealed The deep cleaning shall include ensuring the privacy curtains are maintained clean and in good repair . Resident #10 An observation on 03/04/24 at 10:42 AM, revealed Resident #10 sitting in a wheelchair that had a brown and gray substance on the frame and the spokes of the wheels. The vinyl 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    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 incorporate a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) recommendation for specialized mental health services for a resident admitted with a mental illness for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for PASARR. Resident #73 Findings Include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled PASSAR [Preadmission Screening and Resident Review] and Resident Status Changes Policy revealed, The facility shall complete the pre-admission screening and resident review upon admission to the facility. The facility shall maintain these records within the resident chart at all times. The facility shall proceed with PASARR [Preadmission Screening and Resident Review] level II [two] screenings as indicated in the initial assessment. The results of the PASARR [Preadmission Screening and Resident Review] level II [two] screenings shall be incorporated in the resident's care planning process to provide optimal care for the resident. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted…

    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 before2024-03-07 · 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 observation, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to implement a care plan for a physician ordered brace for one (1) of 24 residents care plans reviewed. Resident #26 Findings Include: A review of the facility policy titled Care Plan Policy , with no revision date, revealed. Purpose: To ensure the facility establishes a guide to resident care to promote the physical and psychological well-being of residents newly admitted and long-term residents residing within the facility . Record review of the Care Plan with a problem on set date of 6/19/19 revealed .requires maintenance of ADL (Activities of Daily Living) functions with risk for decline .Approaches .Brace to left upper extremity to be donned in AM (morning) upon awakening and removed before going to bed in PM (evening). An observation and interview on 03/04/24 at 02:49 PM, revealed Resident #26 sitting up in his wheelchair. Resident #26's left arm was hanging down to the inside of the wheelchair.…

    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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to apply a physician ordered brace for one (1) of six (6) residents sampled for range of motion. Resident #26. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Range of Motion with no revision date, revealed: . The facility shall assist the resident to maintain the highest level of functional ability and range of motion. Devices shall be donned and doffed as ordered by the physician. The use of the devices shall be documented in the residents' medical records and shall be reflected on the resident's care plan. During an observation and interview on 03/04/24 at 02:49 PM, of Resident #26 revealed the resident sitting up in his wheelchair. The residents' left arm was hanging down to the inside of the wheelchair. The resident stated, I have a brace for my arm over in the chair in the corner. Therapy will put it on me when I ask for it, but nobody else knows how to apply it. Record review 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0847 — isolated
    Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
    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 include the required components in the arbitration agreement for three (3) of 3 arbitration agreements reviewed. Findings include: Record review of facility letterhead notice dated 3/7/24, and signed by the Administrator revealed, [Proper name of facility] does not have a policy on Arbitration Agreements. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 9:20 AM, the Administrator revealed during the entrance conference, the facility did not offer arbitration agreements and she was unaware that the facility's admission packet contained an arbitration agreement. The Administrator confirmed the facility failed to include required components into the arbitration agreement which included that signing the arbitration agreement was not a requirement for admission to the facility, that the resident or representative had the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing, and the right for the resident or representative to communicate with federal and state officials including the Ombudsman. Record review of the admission…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one (1) of three (3) incidents reviewed. Resident #6 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Abuse Policy and Procedure, revised date 8/18/2017, revealed, Policy: To ensure all employees interviewed and/or hired are adequately trained in all areas of abuse, not found guilty of abuse, and if occurrence suspected, the facility handles it according to the law and/or license requirements. During a phone interview on 3/1/2024 at 2:30 PM, the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman revealed that during a Resident Council meeting on 2/26/24, Resident #6 voiced concern about physical abuse. She revealed after the Resident Council meeting, she met with the Director of Nurses (DON) and informed her of the allegation and the need to report it to the State. An interview with the DON on 03/04/24 at 04:30 PM, revealed she was made aware of the allegation of…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation 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 25A174. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-09, 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