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

Dugan Memorial Home

26894 East Main Street, West Point, MS 39773 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (662) 494-3640 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (662) 494-3640 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jun 20251 actual-harm citation$8,788 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $8,788 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-16)

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
138 S Division St · (662) 494-4514 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
545 E Main St · (662) 494-2535 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
539 E Main St · (662) 494-2943 · Call to confirm hours
Park
634 E Westbrook St · (662) 494-3214 · 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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 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 increased11.6%20.5%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.1%6.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.5%2.0%better
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 injury1.0%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.3%19.6%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication20.2%23.8%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.7%6.3%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control19.8%20.7%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.1%21.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.3%2.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%84.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission16.2%27.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.8%15.5%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.942.431.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.282.861.80better

* 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.

55.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 79 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

55.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
58.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 58.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 43 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 SNF55.5%CMS range 44.2–65.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.7%CMS range 6.6–13.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge58.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge51.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge55.8%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified97.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.9%CMS range 2.9–10.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.951.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.88
RN hours/ resident / day
0.93
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.30
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.12
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.35
RN hoursweekends
48.7%
Total nursing turnover
41.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 51.4 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 9 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 5.12 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.30 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 4.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.55 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.10 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-18)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-26)

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

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

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

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-06-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, observation of video camera footage, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by another resident for one (1) of four (4) residents sampled. (Resident #1) Specifically, the facility failed to prevent Resident #2, a cognitively intact resident with mental health diagnoses, from engaging in non-consensual sexual contact with Resident #1, a severely cognitively impaired resident, in a supervised common area of the facility. This failure resulted in actual harm to Resident #1, as she experienced inappropriate sexual contact without the ability to consent, resist, or report the incident. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, dated 11/2017, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect,…

    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 · D2026-03-18 · 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 observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a dignified dining experience when one (1) of three (3) residents at the table did not receive their meal at the same time. Resident #11 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity During Mealtimes dated March 2025, revealed, It is the practice of this facility to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality and protecting the rights of each resident. During an observation of lunch in the dining room on 3/16/26 from 12:10 PM through 12:15 PM, it was noted that the two residents sitting at the table with Resident #11 both had their meal and were eating their lunch. Resident #11 was observed without food. She continued to sit and watch the other two residents at her…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-18 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained prior to the initiation of a psychotropic medication for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #9 Findings include:Record review of facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medications, with an implemented date of 10/2025, revealed, .9. Prior to initiating or increasing a psychotropic medication, the resident, family, and/or resident representative must be informed of the benefits, risks, and alternatives for the medications .11. The facility will document that the resident or resident representative was informed in advance (e.g., written consent form, narrative note, etc.)Record review of Resident #9's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 7/28/25 for Trazadone Hydrochloride (HCL) oral tablet 50 milligrams (mg) to be given by mouth at bedtime for sleep.Record review revealed no signed informed consent for Trazadone was present in…

    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 · D2026-03-18 · 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

    Based on resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively intact resident was provided the opportunity to participate in and make informed decisions regarding her advance directive, including end-of-life preferences for one (1) of 24 advance directives reviewed. (Resident #1) Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Advance Directives Policy and Acknowledgment, updated 9/3/25, revealed, Resident has the right to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the right to formulate advance directives.Record review of the facility's Advance Directives/Medical Treatment Decisions form, dated 2/17/22, revealed Resident #1 was designated as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR); however, the form was not signed by Resident #1 and was instead signed by her sister.Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/2/26 revealed under Section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 15, indicating…

    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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    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 ensure the medical provider was notified of a resident refusing multiple doses of prescribed antibiotics for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for medication use. Resident #21 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled Medication Administration dated 1/24, revealed, Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection .18. Report and document any adverse side effects or refusals . During an interview on 9/25/24 at 3:50 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #2 revealed Resident #21 had recently been in the hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia and was on antibiotics. She revealed the resident would often refuse her medications and that if a resident refused medications, the nurse was to notify the provider and the resident's representative. On 9/25/24 at 4:10 PM, an interview with 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 · Dcited before2024-09-26 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a care plan for one (1) of 18 sampled residents' care plans. Resident #21 Findings Include: Record review of facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans dated 10/22, revealed It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Record review of Resident #21's care plan revealed a focus area dated 9/15/24 of Elder has pneumonia. Interventions listed included administer medications as ordered, Cefdinir for ten days for pneumonia, and to keep informed of changes and update MD as needed. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/25/24 at 4:10 PM, revealed Resident #21 refused several doses of the antibiotic medication ordered for the treatment of pneumonia and the provider was not…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to initiate contact isolation precautions for a resident with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and failed to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection by not utilizing proper hand hygiene for one (1) of four (4) resident care observations. Resident #19. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Clean Dressing Change dated 10/2022 revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and/or cross-contamination. Review of the undated facility policy Transmission-Based Precautions revealed, It is our policy to take appropriate precautions to prevent transmission of infectious agents Contact Precautions - Intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, including epidemiologically important microorganisms, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment . On 09/24/24 at 1:00 PM, on entrance into the facility, a brief interview with Administrator…

    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 before2024-06-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    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 prevent verbal abuse to a resident from a staff member for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse. Resident #1 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation-2019 with a review date of 2019 revealed, Policy .It is the policy of this facility to provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. This review revealed under, IV. Identification of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation .B. 5. Verbal abuse of a resident overheard. An interview on 6/11/24 at 8:05 AM, with the Administrator revealed she was notified on 5/26/24 by the Director of Nurses (DON) that Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 had been witnessed by CNA #2 and CNA #3 talking ugly to Resident #1 and was sent home that day…

    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 · F2023-07-13 · 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, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food items in a manner that maintains the safety of the food as evidenced by uncovered, unlabeled and undated food in the refrigerator and freezer for one (1) of two (2) kitchen tours. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Storage of Food and Supplies with a revision date of 12/7/2020 revealed, Description: all food, non-food items and supplies used in food preparation shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination to maintain the safety and wholesomeness of the food for human consumption. Also revealed under, Method/How To/Procedure: . Cover, label and date unused portions and open packages. An observation of the chest freezer with the Dietary Supervisor on 7/11/23 at 9:15 AM, revealed a large round clear container with a dark yellow substance inside and no covering. There was no label observed to identify the substance or the date it was opened. An interview with the Dietary Supervisor revealed the item was frozen mango ice cream that was left over…

    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 · Dcited before2023-07-13 · 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 record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for a resident with a contracture for one (1) of 14 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #16 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans with an implementation date of 10/2022 and no revision date revealed, Policy .It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. An observation on 07/11/23 at 9:55 AM, of Resident #16 revealed the resident had a right-hand contracture with a carrot roll placed in the right hand. Record review of Resident #16's care plans revealed there was no care plan regarding the right-hand contracture or placement of the carrot roll as to how…

    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 · D2023-07-13 · 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, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene to a resident requiring assistance as evidenced by long nails with a brown substance underneath for one (1) of 14 residents sampled. Resident #5 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Nail Care with no revision date revealed, Policy: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 3. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care on an ongoing basis. 4. Principles of nail care: a. Nails should be kept smooth to avoid skin injury. b. Only licensed nurses shall trim or file fingernails of residents with diabetes . An observation on 7/12/23 at 8:15 AM, revealed a contracture to Resident # 5's right hand with all fingers bent inwardly toward the palm of the hand. A hand roll was observed intact 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.

    Quality of Life and Care 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

$8,788 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,788 — penalty dated 2025-06-16

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
DUGAN MEMORIAL HOME, INC.Organization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 01/17/2002
ARTHUR, ALLISONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/19/2022
VANCE, CHRISTIEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/23/2020
ZUELZKE, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/29/2020
MOFFETT, MITCHELLIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$6.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-1.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.1M
Related-party expense16% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 75%Medicare 11%Other / private 14%

About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$345per resident / day
operating cost
$10,489per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$339per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in MS

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Mississippi Medicaid page.

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 255313. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-18, 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