SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Spalding Post Acute LLC has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's care and operations. Ranking #338 out of 353 nursing homes in Georgia places it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and as the lowest of the three options in Spalding County, it has limited local competition. The situation is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is notably weak, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 62%, which is above the state average. Although the facility has not incurred any fines, serious deficiencies were noted, including a failure to provide emergency tracheostomy care for several residents, putting them at risk of life-threatening situations.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Georgia
- #338/353
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Georgia facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 35 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
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Georgia average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
15pts above Georgia avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
14 points above Georgia average of 48%
The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Catheter Care, and Quality ...
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 F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administrat...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriations, the facility failed to ensure pre-employment screenings, specifically a back...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, the f...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five residents (R) (R475) with an indwell...
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
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and a review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five...
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
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, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policies titled Hand Hygiene and Infection...
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 F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Patient/Resident Trust Funds, the facility failed to maintain a Surety Bond in an adequate amount to cover the resi...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medication, the facility failed to ensure there were no expired medications in two of two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
4 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 F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interviews, staff interviews, review of the facility policy titled, Patient/Resident Trust Funds, and review o...
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
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Grievances Policy, Missing It...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policies titled, Glucometer Disinfection, and Infection Prevention and Control, the facility failed to ensure the infection contro...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge Including AMA [agains...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment as evidenced by th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled Reporting Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of misa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled, Enteral feeding process, the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the undated facility policy titled Oxygen Safety revealed that Defective cylinders and equipment shall be removed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews and a review of the facility policy titled Storage of Medications, the facility failed to secure drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure manner for one of six m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews, record reviews, and the document Rules and Regulations for Criminal Background Checks the facility failed to consistently require new hires to go through a criminal background che...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and the facility policy titled Controlled Substance Administration and Accountability the facility failed to maintain accurate records on controlled substanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of the policy titled Tracheostomy Care, no expiration date noted, it was revealed that under General and Procedure G...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
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 observation and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 122 of 136 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2022
12 deficiencies
4 IJ (4 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions regarding e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policies titled NSG Trach Care and Tracheostomy Emergency...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure tracheostomy (trach) care ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the facility was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a code status (advance directive)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misapprop...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADLs) for residents who were unable to provide their own ADLS such as trimming of finger a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy titled Resident's Rights, the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to document which pneumococcal vaccine residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, record review, and review of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality, Safety & Oversight (QSO) memo 20-29, the facility failed to notify the residents, families and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop policies for abuse, neglect, exploration, or misappropriation of resident property that included screening of poten...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure ovens, cold storage units, walls, ceiling, light fixtures, furniture, and floors throughout the kitchen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Georgia facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 35 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Spalding Post Acute Llc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC 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 Spalding Post Acute Llc Staffed?
CMS rates SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 62%, which is 15 percentage points above the Georgia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Spalding Post Acute Llc?
State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 31 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Spalding Post Acute Llc?
SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ELEVATION HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 148 certified beds and approximately 132 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GRIFFIN, Georgia.
How Does Spalding Post Acute Llc Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (62%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Spalding Post Acute Llc?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Spalding Post Acute Llc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Georgia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Spalding Post Acute Llc Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC is high. At 62%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Georgia average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Spalding Post Acute Llc Ever Fined?
SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Spalding Post Acute Llc on Any Federal Watch List?
SPALDING POST ACUTE LLC 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.