PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA

209 WEST HUDSON STREET, OCILLA, GA 31774 (229) 468-9431
For profit - Limited Liability company 83 Beds PRUITTHEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
65/100
#155 of 353 in GA
Last Inspection: January 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

PruittHealth - Ocilla has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. In Georgia, it ranks #155 out of 353 facilities, placing it in the top half, but it is only #2 out of 2 in Irwin County, suggesting there's only one other option available that is better. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 4 in 2023 to just 1 in 2025. While staffing turnover is relatively low at 36%, indicating that staff tend to stay, the facility has concerning RN coverage, being lower than 92% of other Georgia facilities. There have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. However, there are some significant concerns to note. A serious incident occurred where a resident suffered a second-degree burn from hot soup due to a lack of supervision. Additionally, there was a failure in infection control practices related to medication administration, where a nurse did not clean a nasal spray applicator before use. These incidents highlight areas where the facility needs to improve despite its strengths in turnover and no fines. Overall, while PruittHealth - Ocilla has some positive aspects, families should consider these weaknesses when evaluating care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C+
65/100
In Georgia
#155/353
Top 43%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near Georgia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Georgia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below Georgia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Georgia average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 36%

10pts below Georgia avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: PRUITTHEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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 observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision to pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent accidents for one of one resident (Resident (R) R1) reviewed for accidents out of a total sample of 3. This failure caused actual harm on 06/26/25 when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA served R1 a hot soup on a Styrofoam bowl and left the room with R1 attempting to pull the bowl closer when the bowl fell on R1's sternum and R1 sustained a second degree burn on her chest and was hospitalized .Findings include:Review of R 1's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to muscle weakness (generalized), unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, other reduced mobility, Muscle weakness (generalized), and difficulty in walking.Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/23/2025 revealed R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. It was recorded that R1 under section GG-under Eating /Oral hygiene/ Upper body dressing requires Setup or clean-up assistance,Review of R1 Progress Note dated 6/26/2025 at 5:58 pm indicated Resident requested soup for dinner. CNA fixed her some chicken soup. Soup was placed on the bedside table by CNA which advised resident soup was hot. NursingFurther review of R1's Progress Note dated 6/26/2025 at 06:00 pm [Recorded as Late Entry on 6/27/2025 11:23 am] revealed CNA heard resident yell for help. When CNA entered the room, the soup bowl noted to be on floor. The resident states she pulled soup to her and started feeding herself. The soup fell off bedside table on to resident sternum/Abd area. NP notified new order given. Nursing Review of Progress Note dated 6/26/2025 at 6:35 pm revealed Emergency Medical Service (EMS) here to take the resident to the emergency room (ER). Review of Facility Wound Summary Report for R1 indicated a burn on 6/26/2025 at 6 pm located in the mid-chest area with an initial size of 5x5 centimeters (cm). Review of R1's entire clinical record failed to indicate an assessment to determine the resident's ability to handle hot liquids had been completed for the resident prior to 6/26/2025.Review of hospital record revealed R1 was admitted to the local hospital on 6/26/2025 due to second degree burn after spilling hot soup while she was drinking it.During an observation and interview on 7/2/2025 at 1:05 pm with R1, she revealed that she requested soup from Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), CNA AA because she did not like what was on the dinner tray. R1 stated that CNA AA brought the soup in a Styrofoam bowl and sat the soup on a bedside table across the bed. R1 stated that she tried to move the soup, and the bowl fell on her chest and hands. R1 stated that she pushed the bowl off her chest to the floor and started screaming for help. She stated that the soup was very hot. R1 further stated that CNA AA responded within five minutes and reported that she could not do anything because she has to call the nurse, which she did.During an interview on 7/2/2025 at 1:28 pm with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC she revealed that she was on call on the night of the incident. She stated that she received a call from LPN BB that R1 sustained a burn. She stated that she notified the Administrator and informed her of the burn incident for R1.During an interview on 7/2/2025 at 2:48 pm LPN BB revealed that she was at the nursing station when the CNA AA informed her that R1's soup fell on her chest. She stated that she went to R1's room and R1 informed her that the soup was on her bedside table and as she tried to pull the soup closer to her the bowl fell and landed on her chest. LPN BB stated that she notified the physician and LPN CC who was the nurse on call, and the family was notified. She stated that the physician gave her orders for Silvadene and later an order to send R1 to the hospitalDuring a telephone interview on 7/2/2025 at 7:35 pm with CNA AA she revealed that she served R1 her dinner tray and she did not like what was on the tray. She stated that R1 requested soup. She stated that R1 was in bed Head of the Bed (HOB) elevated at 45-degree angle, and legs slightly elevated. She stated that she warmed the soup for a minute in a Styrofoam bowl in the microwave. CNA AA stated that the soup was not steaming because she held the bowl in her hand. It was further reported that she gave R1 some crackers per R1 request to soak them in the soup and placed the bowl on the bedside table with a towel across R1's chest. CNA AA stated that she then went to another resident's room across from R1's room to assist that resident. While in the other resident's room CNA AA reported that she heard R1 calling her name. Upon returning to R1's room CNA AA reported observing the bowl was on the floor and the towel was no longer on the R1's chest. She stated that R1 told her that she was burned, and that is when she called the nurse to the room to evaluate R1. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:41 pm with Minimum Data Status (MDS) Coordinator who revealed the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) discussed to ensure that all residents are assessed to handle utensils, liquids, and bowls. However, she did not specify if residents were assessed for hot liquidsDuring an interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:59 pm with the Dietary Manager revealed that she does not know if residents were assessed for hot liquids. She stated that assessment is completed as a team (IDT). The Dietary Manager stated that she cannot specifically say there was an in-service on hot liquids prior to the burn incident on 6/26/2025.During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:33 pm with the Administrator, who revealed that she expected staff to check food temperature before serving, and if the food needs to be reheated to follow the in-service procedure on 6/27/2025 in service provided. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:40 pm with Director of Nursing (DON) regarding resident assessment. She revealed that residents are assessed upon admission by rehabilitation services and determination and recommendation is communicated to the nursing staff, and if a resident is declining that a referral is made. She stated that all residents are assessed for safety overall and ability.The facility implemented the following:1. SBAR (situation, background, appearance, review and notify) form was completed on 6/26/2025 indicating a burn to the lower part of sternum and top of abdomen.2. Skin assessment completed on 6/26/2025 with treatments identified as nutrition or hydration intervention, pressure-reducing device for chair, and pressure-reducing device for bed.3. Order received for silver sulfadiazine cream, as needed, for burn.4. Transferred to local hospital on 6/26/2025 for evaluation of burn.5. Care plan intervention updated on 6/27/2025 for Occupational Therapy (OT) to evaluate and treat. In addition, a care plan was developed related to the burn to the chest.6. Inservice on 6/27/2025 titled, Food Temperature safety and follow diet. Detailing that when food items should be logged when microwaved. Further stating that once heated to 165 degrees Fahrenheit the food must then be cooled to a reasonable eatable temperature for the resident to eat it.
Jun 2021 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy titled, Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting the facility failed to provide effective infection control practices related to medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy titled, Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting the facility failed to provide effective infection control practices related to medication administration for one of seven residents (R#34) that received fingerstick blood sugar checks and for one of one resident (R#37) that received nasal spray. Findings include: 1. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for fluticasone nasal spray revealed 7. Wipe the nasal applicator with a clean tissue and replace the dust cap and the safety clip. Record review revealed Resident R#37 had a Physician's order since 12/27/2018 for licensed nursing staff to administer fluticasone nasal spray 50 micrograms (mcg)/actuation one spray in each nostril once daily. Observation of medication administration for R#37 with LPN AA on 6/9/2021 at 9:03 a.m. revealed that LPN AA was observed to remove the cap from the resident's fluticasone spray and administered one spray in each nostril without cleaning the nasal applicator before or after administration of the medication. During an interview on 6/9/2021 at 9:12 a.m. with LPN AA revealed that she should have cleaned the nasal applicator with a clean tissue prior to administering the medication and after administering the medication. During an interview with the Director of Health Services (DHS) on 6/9/2021 at 9:30 a.m. revealed that she expected the licensed nursing staff to clean nasal applicators prior to administering medication and after administering medication. DHS confirmed that LPN AA should have cleaned the nasal applicator. 2. Review of facility policy titled, Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting (revised 4/28/2021) documented 4. Clean and disinfect the meter by using approved Germicidal and Disinfectant wipes. Record review revealed R#34 had a Physician's order since 4/12/2021 for licensed nursing staff to check fingerstick blood sugar four times per day before meals and at bedtime. Observation of a fingerstick blood sugar check for R#34 on 6/9/2021 at 11:38 a.m. with LPN BB revealed the glucometer (a device to check blood glucose levels) was cleaned with an alcohol prep pad before and after use. (This glucometer was not used for any additional residents). During an interview with LPN BB on 6/9/2021 at 11:41 a.m. revealed she should have cleaned the glucometer with the approved germicidal wipes and not with an alcohol swab. During an interview with Clinical Competency Coordinator (CCC) on 6/10/2021 at 9:28 a.m. the CCC stated it was her expectation for the licensed nursing staff to clean the glucometers with the approved germicidal wipes that are available on each nursing cart.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that staff designated as the Dietary Manager was a Certified Dietary/Food Service Manager or had a similar food service manage...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that staff designated as the Dietary Manager was a Certified Dietary/Food Service Manager or had a similar food service management certification or degree. There were 51 of 53 Residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the job description for Dietary Manager (DM) (created September 2008 and modified January 2016 revealed Minimum Licensure/Certification Required by Law: must be certified in an accredited course in Dietetic training approved by the Association of Nutrition and Foodservice Professionals and/or the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Review of the new hire checklist revealed the start date of the DM as 5/17/2021. During an interview with the DM on 6/7/2021 at 11:13 a.m., revealed that she began working at the facility as DM in May 2021. The DM revealed that she is neither Serve Safe certified nor was she a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). The DM explained she would be beginning her certification classes later this month. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/10/2021 at 3:32 p.m., revealed that the Administrator revealed that she was aware the current DM was not in compliance with the current regulations related to the requirements for the position of DM.
Aug 2018 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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, interview and Policy titled Medication Administration: Oral Medications, the facility failed to prevent possible contamination of medication during medication administration wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview and Policy titled Medication Administration: Oral Medications, the facility failed to prevent possible contamination of medication during medication administration with one of three licensed nurses. Sample size 31. Findings include; During an observation of medication adminsitration on 8/21/18 at 8:50 a.m. Nurse AA tore open a multi-dose cellophane packet. A pink pill fell out onto the Medication Administration Record Sheet (MAR). Nurse AA picked up the pill, with an ungloved hand, and returned it to the package. The nurse then poured the pills into a medication cup. Medication was then administered. On 8/23/18 at 9:38 a.m. an telephone interview with Nurse AA was attempted. No answer and no return call. On 8/23/18 at 10:04 a.m. during an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) BB, when asked what would be the process if a pill fell out of the cellophane multi-dose package onto the MAR, Nurse BB stated I was educated that if the pill touched any surface other than the pill cup, it is considered contaminated and the pill would need to be discarded. If there was another in the emergency stock, the pharmacy would give us the code to access it; then we would have it replaced. If not then we have to call the pharmacist to order more medicaton. On 8/23/18 at 10:10 a.m. an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated it would be her expectation that a pill that touched any other surface other than the pill cup, would be discarded. On 8/23/18 at 10:15 a.m. further interview with the DON revealed she spoke with other nurses and they all stated that the pill should be discarded and reordered from the pharmacy. Review of policy titled Medication Administration: Oral Medication reviewed 4/25/18, states Never touch any of the medication with fingers.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Georgia facilities.
  • • 36% turnover. Below Georgia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 4 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 65/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Pruitthealth - Ocilla's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA 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 Pruitthealth - Ocilla Staffed?

CMS rates PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Georgia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pruitthealth - Ocilla?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 3 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Pruitthealth - Ocilla?

PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA 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 83 certified beds and approximately 66 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OCILLA, Georgia.

How Does Pruitthealth - Ocilla Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pruitthealth - Ocilla?

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 Pruitthealth - Ocilla Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA 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 Pruitthealth - Ocilla Stick Around?

PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Pruitthealth - Ocilla Ever Fined?

PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA 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 Pruitthealth - Ocilla on Any Federal Watch List?

PRUITTHEALTH - OCILLA 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.