PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
PruittHealth - Lafayette has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for care, though not without some concerns. It ranks #90 out of 353 facilities in Georgia, placing it in the top half, and it is the best option among three facilities in Walker County. The facility is showing improvement in care quality, reducing issues from five in 2023 to three in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a 52% turnover rate, and although this is in line with the state average, more RN coverage than 85% of Georgia facilities is a positive aspect for ensuring resident care. However, there have been some concerning incidents, such as food being stored directly on the floor, improper cleaning of kitchen equipment, and issues with food dating and labeling, which could affect the health of residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and ranking, families should be aware of the cleanliness and food safety issues noted in inspections.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Georgia
- #90/353
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $4,963 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Georgia. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Georgia avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, the facility failed to implement the care plan related to oxygen (O2) therapy for one o...
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
Based on observations, record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen (O2) Administration, the facility failed to ensure that (O2) concentrators were ...
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 observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy titled, Food Ordering, Receiving, and Storage, the facility failed to store food off the floor and failed to remove dented canned...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
5 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 policy titled, Prevention of Patient Abuse, Ne...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to apply for Level two (2) preadmission screening and resident ...
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 interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, the facility failed to ensure tha...
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
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control: Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting, the facility failed to ensure disinfecting the glucometer pe...
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 policy titled, Cleaning Schedules and Labeling, Dating and Storage, the facility failed to ensure that kitchen equipment was kept cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to develop/implement the care plan for two reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure heals were floated and/or heel boots wer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. R#276 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Other Neurological Conditions, Seizure Disorder or Epil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate staff to ensure baths/showers were provided as scheduled for five residents (R) (R#62, R#49, R#4, R#48,...
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, interviews, and policy review entitled Cleaning Procedures: Kitchen Area, the facility failed to ensure the walk-in cooler was operating properly and failed to store food in the ...
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
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • $4,963 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Pruitthealth - Lafayette's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Georgia, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Pruitthealth - Lafayette Staffed?
CMS rates PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Georgia average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Pruitthealth - Lafayette?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Pruitthealth - Lafayette?
PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE 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 PRUITTHEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LAFAYETTE, Georgia.
How Does Pruitthealth - Lafayette Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pruitthealth - Lafayette?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Pruitthealth - Lafayette Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Pruitthealth - Lafayette Stick Around?
PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Georgia average of 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 Pruitthealth - Lafayette Ever Fined?
PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE has been fined $4,963 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Georgia average of $33,128. 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 Pruitthealth - Lafayette on Any Federal Watch List?
PRUITTHEALTH - LAFAYETTE 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.