MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Maple Health and Rehabilitation in Greenville, Kentucky has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice and performs well overall. It ranks #118 out of 266 facilities in Kentucky, placing it in the top half, but it is #3 out of 3 in Muhlenberg County, meaning there are limited local options. The facility is improving, with a reduction in issues from 7 in 2019 to none in 2021. Staffing is average with a turnover rate of 41%, which is better than the state average of 46%, showing that staff tend to stay longer. Notably, there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, but the facility has received concerns in the past. For example, staff failed to consistently knock before entering residents' rooms, and there were lapses in following care plans for administering oxygen to a resident. Despite these weaknesses, the absence of critical issues and fines suggests a commitment to improvement.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Kentucky
- #118/266
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 41% turnover. Near Kentucky's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kentucky. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ○ Average
- 10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (41%)
7 points below Kentucky average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Kentucky average (2.8)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Kentucky avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record
Mar 2019
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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** 2. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 03/02/18 with diagnoses which included Generalized Anxiety Disor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review revealed the faclity admitted Resident #89, on 02/08/18 with diagnoses which included Hypertension, Non-Alzheim...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (1) of twenty-two (22) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's standards of practice, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility mee...
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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide oxygen (O2) therapy according to the Physician's Order and Care Plan for on...
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 observation, interview and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with current...
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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff follow hand hygiene practices consistent with accepted standards of pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2018
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and review of the Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) Advisory Opinion Statement (AOS) #14, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arra...
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
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy and procedure, it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to prevent complicatio...
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
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility's policy and procedure, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed ...
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.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
- • 41% turnover. Below Kentucky's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • No major red flags. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.
About This Facility
What is Maple's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Kentucky, 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 Maple Staffed?
CMS rates MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Maple?
State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2018 to 2019. These included: 10 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Maple?
MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 88 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GREENVILLE, Kentucky.
How Does Maple Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple?
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 Maple Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Kentucky. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Maple Stick Around?
MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Kentucky 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 Maple Ever Fined?
MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Maple on Any Federal Watch List?
MAPLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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.