AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION

310 EMERALD DRIVE, COLUMBUS, MS 39702 (662) 327-8021
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds VANGUARD HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#26 of 200 in MS
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: April 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Aurora Health and Rehabilitation in Columbus, Mississippi, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option for families, as it falls within the solid choice range. It ranks #26 out of 200 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among four local facilities in Lowndes County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from two in 2024 to one in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a 35% turnover rate that is lower than the state average, meaning staff members are more likely to stay and build relationships with residents. Despite no fines being reported, there were specific incidents such as a resident sustaining a burn from a portable heater and another resident not rinsing their mouth after using an inhaler, highlighting areas for improvement, but overall, the facility maintains a favorable reputation.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Mississippi
#26/200
Top 13%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Mississippi. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: VANGUARD HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 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

Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, hazard-free environment for a resident when a portable heater was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, hazard-free environment for a resident when a portable heater was used in the resident's room and caused a burn to the resident's skin for one (1) of three (3) incidents reviewed. Resident #1. Based on corrective actions implemented 5/5/25, the State Agency determined this to be Past Non-Compliance. Findings include:Record review of facility policy titled, Incidents and Accidents Policy, undated, revealed, Accident - Any unexpected or unintentional incident which results, or may result, in injury or illness to a resident. Incident - An occurrence or situation that is not consistent with the routine care of a resident or with the routine operation of the organization. This can involve a visitor, vendor, or staff member.During an observation and interview on 8/25/25 at 1:20 PM, Resident #1 was observed in his room in his bed with his right elbow noted to be covered in a dressing. He stated he has a disorder that makes him sweat even when he is cold and he prefers to be uncovered and undressed since the clothing and covers retain the sweat moisture. He stated several months ago, he asked the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 to use the heater his representative brought to him and the nurse was hesitant, but she did what he requested. Approximately an hour later, the next nurse came in and took the portable heater out of the room and noted redness and blisters on his right elbow and due to his spinal injury, he did not feel pain in this area. An interview with LPN #1 on 8/26/25 at 8:40 AM revealed she was asked by Resident #1 to use the heater that his family had brought him. She informed him that heaters were not allowed in the facility, but he convinced her that he had been using it and it was located in the closet. She acknowledged that she knew better than to do this, but against her better judgement, she set it up on a table approximately 3 feet from the resident as he requested. The time of this was approximately 11:00 PM, prior to her going home for the evening. Shortly after midnight, LPN #2 called her to ask her about the heater being by his bedside and informed her of the redness and blisters to his elbow. She acknowledged she made a mistake when she placed the heater in the resident's area and she knew better but was trying to do what the resident asked because he was cold.During a phone interview on 8/26/25 at 9:20 AM, LPN #2 revealed she and another Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) made their initial rounds and noted the heater at Resident #1's bedside and the redness and blisters to the resident's right elbow. She stated the resident told her he was not in pain and was unaware that the injury occurred. During an interview with the Administrator on 8/26/25 at 1:30 PM, it was revealed that space heaters were not allowed in resident rooms due to the fire risk and burn risk. An employee used the heater that the resident's family brought, and the resident received a burn to his right elbow. She confirmed the facility failed to provide a safe and hazard free environment for Resident #1 when a space heater was set up at his bedside and caused a burn.Record review of Resident #1's Progress Note by the Medical Doctor dated 5/3/25 at 6:39 AM, revealed, Chief complaint.Patient seen for burn injury .noticed multiple blisters on right elbow, resident was not aware of them.Diagnosis Second degree burn of right elbow.Record review of wound culture dated 5/22/25 revealed results of bacteria of Enterococcus Faecalis.Record review of wound culture dated 6/19/25 revealed results of bacteria pathogens of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Enterococcus Faecalis. Record review of the Order Summary Report revealed an order on 5/29/25 - 6/5/25 for Augmentin Oral Tablet 500-125 milligrams two times a day for right elbow wound infection for 7 days; order on 6/25/25 - 7/2/25 for Bactrim DS Oral Tablet 800-160 milligrams one tablet two times a day for right elbow wound infection; and an order on 6/27/25 - 7/11/25 for Doxycycline oral tablet 100 milligrams two times a day for right arm infection for 14 days.Record review of Resident #1's electronic Medication Administration Record revealed the resident received the antibiotics for the wound infections as ordered.Record review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility initially on 3/27/24 with the most recent admission date of 10/1/24, with diagnoses that included Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Paraplegia, and Autonomic Dysreflexia.Record review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Section C - Cognitive Patterns dated 7/2/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicted the resident was cognitively intact.The facility has documented evidence date of corrections prior to the state agency entrance, therefore, this is cited as past noncompliance. The facility implemented corrective actions on 05/5/25, including staff education, enhanced monitoring, and completed safety monitoring. Validation of the corrective actions were verified through staff interviews, record reviews and observations.
Apr 2024 2 deficiencies
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** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to properly co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to properly code a resident for a restraint on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 21 residents MDS assessments reviewed during survey. Resident #56 Findings Include. A review of the facility policy revised 04/2019 titled Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI)/CARE PLANNING MANAGEMENT revealed it is the practice of this facility to conduct a comprehensive, accurate assessment of each resident's functional capacity. A record review of Resident #56's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] section P revealed used a trunk restraint less than daily. An observation and interview, on 04/02/24 at 10:29 AM, of Resident #56 revealed the resident lying in bed resting. The observation revealed that the resident did not have a restraint on. The resident confirmed that he does not have any type of restraint. An interview, on 04/02/24 at 10:40 AM with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 confirmed that Resident #56 has not had a restraint on that she can remember. A record review of Resident #56's Physicians' Orders revealed there is no order for restraint. An interview, on 04/03/24 at 10:10 AM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 confirmed that Resident #56 has not had a restraint for the seven (7) years that she has worked here. An interview on 04/03/24 at 10:20 AM, with the MDS Nurse confirmed that under Section P of the MDS completed on 03/12/24 that trunk restraint was marked by mistake. MDS Nurse confirmed that Resident #56 has never had a restraint and that it was marked in error and that she will have to complete a modification to remove it. She confirmed that the purpose of the MDS is to gather knowledge about the resident through an assessment to guide the care that the resident received and payment for resident services. The MDS Nurse confirmed that coding the MDS incorrectly can affect the resident's level of care. An interview on 04/03/24 at 1:00 PM, with the Administrator confirmed that the purpose of the MDS is to determine the level of care that the resident needs and that coding it incorrectly could result in the resident receiving the wrong level of care. A review of the admission Record for Resident #56 revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
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, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent the possibility o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent the possibility of an infection as evidence by a suction connecting tubing not being replaced after making contact with a trash can during respiratory care for one (1) of seven (7) residents direct care observations. Resident #47 Findings Include Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control with a revision date of 5/2023 revealed under Standard Explanation and Compliance Guidelines #11. Equipment Protocol: e. All contaminated disposable items shall be discarded in a waste receptacle lined with a RED plastic bag. An observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 8:12 AM, revealed the Respiratory Therapist (RT) performed suctioning and trachea care on Resident #47. After the RT suctioned the resident's tracheostomy, she removed the suction connecting tubing that was placed inside the resident's trachea and placed it in the trash, allowing the suction tubing to fall and lay on the side of the resident's trash can that was full of trash. The RT went to the restroom, washed her hands, returned, placed gloves on and poured sterile water into a cup, picked up the suction tubing from the side of the trash can, suctioned some of the sterile water through the tubing and then wrapped the tubing around the suction canister and covered it in plastic. This observation revealed the suction canister was labeled and dated 4/1/24. An interview with the RT revealed she covered it to be used for the next suctioning. She stated the suction tubing and canister get changed weekly and is due to be changed on 4/8/24. She confirmed that the end of the suction tubing that would have connected to the suction connector had touched the trash can and could have caused an infection. She revealed the tubing should have been changed, instead of wrapping it up for it to be used the next time. An interview on 4/3/24 at 9:30 AM, with the Infection Preventionist confirmed the suction tubing touching the trash can in the resident's room should have been changed, because that would have been a break in infection control. She stated it was dirty and could have caused a problem. An interview on 4/3/24 at 12:05 PM, with Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed that the suction tubing used to connect to the suction connector should have been changed after the tip of the suction tubing touched the resident's trash can because that could have caused an infection. Record review of Resident #47's Order Summary Report revealed a physician's order dated 9/30/21 to ensure proper storage, stocking and covering of respiratory therapy equipment in residents' room every shift. Record review of Resident #47's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction and Tracheostomy Status.
Nov 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 facility policy review the facility failed to make a referral for a resident with a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to make a referral for a resident with a new diagnosis of schizophrenia for a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II screen for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed. Resident #46 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment-coordination with the PASARR program with a revision date of 10/2019 revealed under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .#6. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. Record review of the Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Application for Long Term Care dated 3/5/19 revealed the resident did not have diagnosis of a major mental disorder. The PASARR Level I screen was effective 03/05/19 Record review of Resident #46's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A new diagnosis of Schizophrenia was indicated on 01/08/21. Record review of Resident #46's Behavioral Medicine Evaluation and Management Notes dated 5/2/19 revealed the resident gave a verbal medical history of a Schizophrenia diagnosis but was not currently exhibiting signs of Schizophrenia but on 01/07/21 the resident had developed hallucinations and on 02/03/21 the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner noted the new diagnosis of Schizophrenia by history. An interview on 11/8/22 at 1:28PM, with Social Services #1 revealed that Resident #46 should have had a new PASARR completed and sent in when the resident received the new diagnosis of Schizophrenia. She revealed she was responsible for doing the new PASARR and confirmed she did not do it. She revealed that the PASARR should have been resent after the diagnosis of Schizophrenia to make sure he was still suitable for nursing home placement and find out what different services he might need. An interview on 11/9/22 at 9:00 AM, with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner confirmed that she gave Resident #46 a diagnosis of Schizophrenia after he was admitted to the facility based on his verbal medical history and development of behaviors that included hallucinations. An interview on 11/9/22 at 10:00 AM, with the Administrator confirmed that the PASARR should have been redone after Resident #46 received the new diagnosis of Schizophrenia to make sure he was still suitable for Long Term Care (LTC) placement. Record review of Resident #46's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 09/08/22 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact and Section I revealed the resident has an Active Diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
Aug 2019 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #82 rinsed his mouth out after the administration of a Metered-Dose Inhaler to prevent possible mouth and throat irritation. This was identified for one of two (1 of 2) residents observed for metered dose inhaler administration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration Guidelines, Oral Inhalation Administration, Revised 7/2019, revealed Purpose: TO allow for correct administration of oral inhalers to residents, and for instruction in proper technique for those residents able to administer the medication to themselves. Procedure: O. Have resident rinse his/her mouth and spit out the water. Review of Nursing Skills and Procedures, [NAME] and [NAME], Eighth Edition, revealed page 274 #16 revealed: About 2 minutes after the last dose, instruct patient to rinse mouth with warm water and expel water. Inhaled bronchodilators may cause dry mouth and taste alterations. Corticosteroids may alter flora of oral mucosa and lead to development of fungal infection. Review of the WebMD website, on 9/11/19 at 4:05 PM, titled, Combivent Mist Inhaler, revealed: Rinse your mouth after using the inhaler to prevent dry mouth and throat irritation. On 8/27/19 at 10:54 AM, an observation during the medication administration pass revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 administered Combivent Respimat inhaler two (2) puffs to Resident #82, and failed to ask Resident #82 to rinse his mouth after administration of the inhaler. A review of Resident #82's Physician Orders, dated August 27, 2019, revealed Resident #82 had orders for Combivent Respimat Aerosol Solution 20-100 micrograms (mcg) two (2) puffs inhale orally three times a day related to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Have resident to rinse mouth after inhalation and spit out rinse water. On 08/27/19 at 11:30 AM, an interview with LPN #1 confirmed she did not ask the resident to rinse his mouth after the administration of his inhaler. She stated she usually asked and the resident says no, and she didn't ask today. LPN #1 stated its important to rinse your mouth after the inhaler because residue will build up and it can lead to thrush and other complications. On 08/27/19 at 4:40 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the facility had an in-service on administration of medications and the nurses were reminded at that time to have residents rinse their mouth after any inhaler treatments. The DON stated this is important to prevent adverse effects of the inhaler. Review of Resident #82's Care Plan, no date, revealed a Focus for COPD and Allergy Rhinitis. The Interventions/Tasks included Combivent Respimat Aerosol Solution 20-100 micrograms (mcg) two (2) puffs inhale orally three times a day. The Care Plan did not address the need to rinse the mouth after the inhaler administration. A review of the Inservice Education, titled, Medication Administration Update, held on 8/9/19, revealed LPN #1 attended this in-service. Review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #82, on 10/26/15, with the included diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Malignant Neoplasm of Esophagus, Cardiomyopathy, and Anxiety. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/13/19, revealed Resident #82's Basis Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13, which indicated his cognition was intact.
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 Mississippi facilities.
  • • 35% turnover. Below Mississippi's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 5 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Aurora's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Mississippi, 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 Aurora Staffed?

CMS rates AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Aurora?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 4 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Aurora?

AURORA 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 VANGUARD HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 85 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in COLUMBUS, Mississippi.

How Does Aurora Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aurora?

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 Aurora Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AURORA 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Aurora Stick Around?

AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for Mississippi 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 Aurora Ever Fined?

AURORA 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 Aurora on Any Federal Watch List?

AURORA 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.

AURORA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION

310 EMERALD DRIVE, COLUMBUS, MS 39702 | (662) 327-8021

B
Trust Grade (75/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
5
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025