COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Countryside Post Acute in Buchanan, Georgia has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #265 out of 353 facilities in Georgia, placing it in the bottom half, although it is #2 out of 3 in Haralson County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 9 in 2024. Staffing is a noted weakness, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars, and less RN coverage than 93% of facilities in the state, which raises concerns about the quality of care residents receive. Specific incidents include misappropriation of over $52,000 from residents' trust accounts and inadequate nursing staff to meet residents' needs, highlighting serious management and care issues that families should consider. While the staff turnover rate is below the state average at 44%, the overall lack of adequate care and oversight presents a troubling picture for prospective residents.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Georgia
- #265/353
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Georgia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $4,068 in fines. Higher than 65% of Georgia facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (44%)
4 points below Georgia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Georgia average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Georgia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Apr 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to uphold the right of dignity for one of three residents (R) (R8) receiving catheter care by not providing necessary priva...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate space to meet the needs for one of three residents (R) (R8) in a shared room, compromis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident, facility staff and Hospice staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Renal Dialysis Managem...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the staff designated as Dietary Manager possessed the required certification as a Certified Dietary or Food Service Mana...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Trust Policy, the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff and local police interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Freedom from Patient Abuse, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews and review of the Facility Assessment Tool and the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report Quarter (Q) 1 2024, the facility failed to ensure there was adequate nursi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Food Temperature, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitation measures were followed and to uphold appropriate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews, record review, police investigation reports, and review of the facility policies titled, Freedom from Patient Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment and Misappropriation...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to accommodate the needs for one of 30 sampled residents (R) (R#5) related to providing a Hoyer lift pad to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, the facility failed to apply for Level two (2) PASRR (Preadmission Scree...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Pharmacy Services Psychotrop...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that four handrails were firmly and securely attached t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interview, and review of the facility's policy titled, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, the facility failed to ensure that two of two medication carts ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Sanitizing Dietary Areas and Equipment, the facility failed to ensure all kitchen areas and equipment ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2021
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure opened food items in the dry storage area and items in unit refrigerators were labeled and used or disposed of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff and resident interviews and review of the facility policy titled Droplet Precautions...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • $4,068 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 44% turnover. Below Georgia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Countryside Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Georgia, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Countryside Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Georgia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Countryside Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE during 2021 to 2024. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Countryside Post Acute?
COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 62 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BUCHANAN, Georgia.
How Does Countryside Post Acute Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Countryside Post Acute?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Countryside Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Georgia. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Countryside Post Acute Stick Around?
COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Georgia nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Countryside Post Acute Ever Fined?
COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE has been fined $4,068 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Georgia average of $33,120. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Countryside Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
COUNTRYSIDE POST ACUTE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.