CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Chaplinwood Nursing Home in Milledgeville, Georgia has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack compared to other facilities. It ranks #120 out of 353 in the state, indicating it is in the top half, and #3 out of 4 in Baldwin County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 6 in 2023 to 4 in 2025. However, staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and turnover at 43%, which is better than the state average but still below ideal. Additionally, there have been serious incidents, including one where a resident suffered a fracture during a transfer due to improper assistance and another where expired food items were found in the kitchen, posing a risk to residents. While the nursing home does have some strengths, such as a decent turnover rate, these incidents highlight important areas for families to consider.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Georgia
- #120/353
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Georgia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $7,901 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 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 (43%)
5 points below Georgia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Georgia average (2.6)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Georgia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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
Jun 2025
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
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 clean Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) filte...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 policy titled A Comprehensive Pa...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a respiratory therapy mask was properl...
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 Labeling and Dating, the facility failed to ensure that expired foods were not available for use. This deficient pra...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
6 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for R8 dated 9/6/2023 revealed:
Section K-Nutrition: Weight loss indicated not...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that one resident (R 73) of three residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interviews the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment as evidenced by slow draining sinks, m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition the facility failed to ensure two residents (R57 and R41) of 81 residents were free from verbal...
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** 2. Review of R8 diagnoses include but not limited to dementia with behaviors, dysphagia, and Alzheimer's disease.
Review of the ...
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, documents, and review of facility policy titled Cleaning and Sanitizing, Storage, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary man...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five per cent (5%). A total number of 35 medication opportunities were o...
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 observation, interviews and review of facility policy titled Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP), the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policies review titled Preventive Maintenance Schedules, and Physical Plant Main...
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
- • 43% turnover. Below Georgia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 13 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Chaplinwood's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Georgia, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Chaplinwood Staffed?
CMS rates CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Georgia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chaplinwood?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 11 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Chaplinwood?
CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CLINICAL SERVICES, INC., a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 88 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MILLEDGEVILLE, Georgia.
How Does Chaplinwood Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chaplinwood?
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 Chaplinwood Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME 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 3-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 Chaplinwood Stick Around?
CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Chaplinwood Ever Fined?
CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME has been fined $7,901 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Georgia average of $33,158. 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 Chaplinwood on Any Federal Watch List?
CHAPLINWOOD NURSING HOME 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.