West Point Community Living Center
2056 N Eshman Avenue, West Point, MS 39773 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (662) 494-6011 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0610) — most recent Aug 2025
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $44,873 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-07)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 2 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 29.4% | 20.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.7% | 19.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.3% | 23.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.6% | 97.0% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 40.8% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 20.6% | 84.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.0% | 27.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.9% | 15.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.14 | 2.43 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.79 | 2.86 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
49.8% 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 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.2% 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 23 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 49.8%CMS range 31.4–64.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.6%CMS range 9.0–20.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 69.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 7.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 100 beds and averages 50.0 residents a day — about 50% occupied, or roughly 50 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-08-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents right to be free from abuse for six (6) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Resident #20, #21, #5, #41, #34 and #50. On 06/30/25 the facility reported that a resident with a history of behaviors and aggression towards others, (Resident #65) stood up from his chair while sitting in the dining room, and had gotten behind Resident #20 while he sat in his wheelchair and choked him. Staff heard other residents yelling for help and the staff separated Resident #65 from choking Resident #20. Resident #20 immediately began to have seizures that lasted for three or more minutes and continued to have multiple seizures a day until he was sent out to the hospital on [DATE]. Additionally, the SA determined that Resident #45, Resident #46 and Resident #65 had aggressive behaviors towards other residents in the facility and were not monitored, nor were protective measures taken to…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to investigate a resident's allegation of sexual abuse by another resident for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for abuse. The facilities failure to investigate and implement protective interventions made the resident feel angry, violated, and unsafe, and lead him to avoid leaving his room for fear of being watched by the alleged perpetrator. This failure placed Resident #34 at risk for further abuse, emotional distress, and significant harm to his sense of safety and well-being. Resident #34Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program with a revision date of 10/22 revealed under, 8. Identify and investigate all possible incidents of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property. 9. Investigate and report any allegations within timeframes required by federal requirements. 10. Protect residents from any further harm during investigations.An observation 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent the possibility of the spread of infection during medication administration as evidenced by failing to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were utilized and ensuring a multi-use glucometer was properly cleaned and disinfected for two (2) of four (4) medication observations. Resident #21, Resident #40Findings include:Record review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions with no revision date revealed Enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) are utilized to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to residents.3. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include: . g. device care or use (.feeding tube) . Record review of the facility policy titled, Blood Sampling-Capillary (Finger Sticks) undated, revealed Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to guide the safe handling of capillary-blood sampling devices to prevent transmission of bloodborne diseases to residents 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the requirements for obtaining a Preadmission Screen (PAS) for a resident in the facility for greater than 30 days for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed. Resident #10Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, admission Criteria, dated 4/10/23, revealed, .9. All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID), or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) process . During an interview on 8/6/25 at 8:20 AM, the Social Worker stated Resident #10 was admitted to the facility for therapy with plans to be discharged home within 30 days, but her therapy was extended. She acknowledged the resident had diagnoses of bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. She confirmed the Pre-admission Screening (PAS) process evaluated residents for proper placement in nursing facilities and she confirmed the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Resident #5), Bipolar and anxiety disorder (Resident #10), and failed to implement a care plan for a resident receiving nectar thickened liquids (Resident #27) for three (3) of 22 care plans reviewed. Resident #5, #10, #27Findings Include: Resident #5 Review of the facility policy titled “Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered” reviewed 10/2022, revealed under, “Policy Statement: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident’s physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Record review of Resident #5’s Care Plans revealed a care plan was not developed for past traumatic events or potential triggers. On 8/4/25 at 10:52 AM, an observation and interview with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assess and identify potential triggers for a trauma survivor for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Resident #5Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Trauma-Informed and Culturally Competent Care, revised 8/22, revealed under Purpose: To guide staff in providing care that is culturally competent and trauma-informed in accordance with professional standards of practice, and to address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization.An observation and interview with Resident #5 on 8/4/25 at 10:52 AM revealed he was lying in bed with the curtains closed and the room dark. The resident stated he suffered from depression and took an antidepressant. He explained that he served in the [NAME] Corps for 17 years and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He stated that having to kill people during his…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% by ensuring that residents received all physician-ordered medications for three (3) of 28 medication administration opportunities observed during medication pass. The medication error rate was 10.71%.Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration dated November 1, 2008 revealed, Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so . B. Administration . 2) Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician . On 8/06/2025 at 9:35 AM, a medication administration observation with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 revealed a medication administration to Resident # 5. The medications administered were Diazepam tablet 5 mg (milligrams), Linzess oral capsule 145 mcg (micrograms) Prednisone tablet 5 mg (3 tablets) Pantoprazole…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to serve a therapeutic diet as ordered for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for the dining task. Resident #27Findings Include:An interview with the Administrator on 8/7/25 at 10:06 AM revealed the facility did not have a policy regarding serving diets as ordered.An observation of Resident #27's lunch meal on 8/4/25 at 11:20 AM revealed she received a meal in the dining room consisting of cornbread dressing with cranberry sauce, rice with gravy, diced carrots, a roll, milk, and apple cobbler. The resident was provided with a carton of 2% milk (non-thickened) with a straw inserted. She was observed feeding herself.A record review of Resident #27's meal ticket revealed the following note: Nectar liquids, nectar milk.An observation of Dietary Staff #1 on 8/4/25 at 11:28 AM revealed she brought a carton of nectar-thickened milk to Resident #27's meal tray and removed the regular consistency milk. In an interview, Dietary Staff #1 confirmed that the resident had been served regular milk. She explained she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-08 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from misappropriation of a resident's medication for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for misappropriation. Resident #1 Cross Reference F610 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and/or Exploitation Prevention Plan Education dated [DATE], revealed, The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardian, friends, or other individuals. Misappropriation of resident property - Deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Record review of facility policy titled, Resident Rights dated [DATE],…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-08 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 prevent further potential medication misappropriation by allowing a nurse to continue to work during an investigation for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. Resident #1 Cross Reference F602 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation- Reporting and Investigating dated 10/22, revealed, All reports of .theft/misappropriation of resident property are .thoroughly investigated by facility management. 6. Any employee who has been accused of resident abuse is placed on leave with no resident contact until the investigation is complete . Record review of facility policy titled, Controlled Substances, undated, revealed, . 5. Controlled substances are separately locked in permanently affixed compartments, except when using single unit package drug distribution systems in which the quantity stored is minimal and a missing dose can be readily detected. 6. All keys to controlled substance containers are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-03 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Resident #1. Based on the implementation of the facility's corrective actions taken on 11/08/2024, the deficient practice was determined to be Past Non-Compliance, and the facility had put measures in place to correct the deficient practice prior to the State Agency's (SA) entrance into the facility on [DATE]. Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled, Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and/or Exploitation Prevention Plan Education with revision date of 11/14/17 revealed Reports must be within 24 hours (if the allegation does not involve abuse or there is not serious bodily injury) after forming your reasonable suspicion. Within 2 (two) hours (if the allegation involves abuse or there is serious bodily injury) after forming your reasonable suspicion In an interview on 02/03/25 at 9:40 AM, with the Administrator (ADM) she revealed that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from a significant medication error as evidenced by one drop of mometasone furoate external scalp solution being instilled into a resident's left eye in place of the physician ordered eye drops for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Resident #2. Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors with reviewed date of 08/2023 revealed under Medication Errors, 1. A 'medication error' is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biological which is not in accordance with physician's orders, manufacturer specifications, or accepted professional standards and principles of the professional(s) providing services. 2. Examples of medications errors include: d. Wrong route of administration (e.g., ear drops given in the eye). On 03/20/24 at 9:00 AM, an interview with Administrator (ADM), revealed that on 02/25/24, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 worked on the medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a medication was properly stored as evidenced by a tube of Hydrocortisone Topical Cream being left on a resident's overbed table for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Resident #2. Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility dated December, 2006, revealed under Policy: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. An observation and interview on 03/20/24 at 10:50 AM, with Resident #2 revealed her lying in her bed with her head raised at 90-degree angle and she was on her phone. Resident #2's bedside table was within reach positioned over her legs and there was a tube of prescription steroid cream sitting on her bedside table. The tube was inside a prescription…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent the spread of infection as evidenced by placement of a treatment cart inside a resident room during treatment care for one (1) of three (3) survey days. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Standard Precautions dated May 30, 2012, revealed, Standard Precautions will be used in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnoses or suspected or confirmed infection status. Standard Precautions presume that all blood, membranes may contain transmissible infectious agents . Record review of facility policy titled, Infection Control Program dated February 1, 2008, revealed, The facility will establish and maintain an Infection Control Program focused on preventing the transmission of infectious disease in the long-term care setting. Purpose: Decrease the risk of infection for residents and staff; Monitor for the occurrence of infections and implement control measures; Identify and correct…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-23 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 staff interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative and failed to notify the Ombudsman of transfers to the hospital in writing of a transfer/discharge for one (3) of three (3) residents reviewed. Residents #17, #33, and #56. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Documentation RE: Transfer/Discharge, dated 9/18/2017, revealed It is the policy of this facility that when a resident is transferred or discharged his or her medical records be documented as to the reasons why such action was taken 5. Facility will notify the local ombudsman of the discharge and reason for discharge. Resident #33 An interview with Resident #33 on 6/20/2022 at 3:25 PM, revealed he had been in the hospital recently for pneumonia. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 6/22/22 at 8:22 AM, revealed she was unaware of the requirement to notify the ombudsman when a resident transfers to the hospital and this had not been done. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that a stop date was ordered for an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for medications. Resident #33. Findings include: An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/22/22 at 3:00 PM, revealed the resident had an episode of yelling at staff in May. She revealed the Medical Provider was notified and an order for Ativan as needed (PRN) was given, but the resident calmed down and did not require any doses of the PRN medication. She confirmed the Ativan PRN medication, being a psychotropic medication, required a 14 day stop date, but a stop date was not given for the Ativan medication. An interview with the Administrator on 6/23/22 at 9:05 AM, revealed on 5/8/22, the resident was ordered Ativan PRN without a stop date. She confirmed psychotropic medications are to be used only when necessary and PRN use should be limited, and the facility failed to limit the PRN psychotropic medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$44,873 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $44,873 — penalty dated 2025-08-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 1.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 16 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2000 |
| OSTRANDER, TROY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/06/2023 |
| SPENCE, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2025 |
| WRIGHT, DOUGLAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
About 92% 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 $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Mississippi Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 255111. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.