TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER

230 AIRLINE ROAD, COLUMBUS, MS 39702 (662) 327-9404
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
68/100
#54 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: May 2024

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

Overview

Trinity Healthcare Center in Columbus, Mississippi has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #54 out of 200 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Lowndes County, meaning there is one local option that is better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, earning a 5-star rating with a turnover rate of 34%, which is well below the state average, suggesting that staff are stable and familiar with residents. On the downside, $10,033 in fines is concerning, and the facility has had serious incidents, including failure to provide adequate personal hygiene assistance and not managing resident pain effectively, which raises questions about compliance with care standards.

Trust Score
C+
68/100
In Mississippi
#54/200
Top 27%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
34% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$10,033 in fines. Lower than most Mississippi facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Mississippi. 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.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 7 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (34%)

    14 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 34%

12pts below Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $10,033

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
May 2024 7 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** Resident #17 Record review of the ADL care plan for Resident #17 revealed the resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #17 Record review of the ADL care plan for Resident #17 revealed the resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to activity intolerance, dementia, impaired balance, and stroke. Interventions included the resident requires substantial assistance by two (2) staff with personal hygiene. On 5/28/2024 at 11:06 AM, an observation revealed Resident #17 sitting in a wheelchair in the day room with one-fourth (1/4) inch of gray facial hair observed to the sides of his face and above his lip. On 5/29/2024 at 1:44 PM, an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #17 had long facial hair. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/30/2024 at 10:25 AM revealed the purpose of the care plan was to have a guide to follow for resident care and confirmed the care plan for personal hygiene was not followed. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #17 on 11/14/2023 with a medical diagnosis of unspecified dementia. Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident exhibiting nonverbal signs of pain and a care plan to address ADL (activities of daily living) of a resident for two (2) of 19 resident care plans reviewed. Resident #29 and Resident #17. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans with no revision date revealed it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Resident #29 Record review of Resident #29's care plans revealed a care plan regarding Elder is at risk for pain with a goal of; The elder will verbalize pain reduction or relief with each intervention. Interventions included administer pain medications as ordered and monitor for effectiveness, observe for need for pain medications prior to any care and observe for verbal/nonverbal indications of discomfort. An observation on 05/28/24 at 11:03 AM revealed that two staff members were leaving Resident #29's room with a bag of garbage and the resident was moaning loud enough to be heard in the hallway. Upon entry into the resident's room, the resident was sitting up in her wheelchair, dressed in personal clothes and continued making loud moaning noises with her mouth open at all times, her eyebrows were furrowed, and a single tear fell from her right eye. The resident was unable to be interviewed and could not answer questions at this time. An interview on 5/28/24 at 11:20 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed the aides were getting Resident #29 up out of bed when they were observed leaving the room around 11:00 AM. During an interview on 5/29/24 at 10:45 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 confirmed that Resident #29 moans most of the time, but when they get her up or move her, she moans loader. She stated that the resident's care plans are to let the staff know what care the resident needs and we should have let her nurse know she was moaning out and they could give her pain medication. During an interview on 5/29/24 at 12:00 PM with Registered Nurse (RN)/Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse confirmed that Resident #29 had a diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma and movement probably increases the resident's pain. She stated that the only way to know for sure that the resident is in pain is if her moaning increased, but there would be no way to tell what the pain level was on a scale of 1-10, because the resident is unable to verbalize that information. She revealed that the residents care plan provides the care needed for the residents. She confirmed that she put in the resident's pain care plan and the care plan goal of the resident verbalizing pain relief would be difficult to for her to achieve. On 5/29/24 at 3:30 PM, an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed that it would be impossible for Resident #29 to give them a pain scale of 1-10 or let them know if she is relieved from the pain medication. She confirmed that the care plan needed some changing to apply more to this resident and was not being implemented to the best of its ability due to not providing as needed (PRN) pain medication or offering every 4 hours as ordered. Record review of Resident #29's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnosis that included Multiple Myeloma not having achieved remission and Secondary Malignant Neoplasm of Bone. Record review of Resident #29's physicians orders revealed an order dated 3/15/24 for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen tablet 5-325 milligrams (mg) by (via) PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube) every 4 hours as needed for pain. Record review of Resident #29's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed the resident has received nine (9) PRN (as needed) Hydrocodone pills in the last 29 days with the last administration being 5/27/24 at 1:47 AM.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident representative interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident representative interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from pain after exhibiting nonverbal signs of excruciating pain for one (1) or 16 residents sampled. Resident #29 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pain Management with no revision date revealed under the Policy .The facility must ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences This review revealed under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .The facility utilizes a systematic approach for recognition, assessment, treatment and monitoring of pain .k. Sighing, groaning, crying, breathing heavily; under Pain Assessment: e. Determining factors that make the pain better or worse; and under Monitoring: 1. Reassess patients with pain regularly based on the facility's established intervals. On 05/28/24 at 11:03 AM, an observation revealed two staff members were leaving Resident #29's room with a bag of garbage and the resident was moaning loud enough that it could be heard from the hallway outside of her room. Upon entering the resident's room, the resident was sitting up in her wheelchair, dressed in personal clothes and continued making loud moaning noises with her mouth open at all times, her eyebrows were furrowed, and a single tear fell from her right eye. The resident was unable to be interviewed and could not answer questions. On 5/28/24 at 11:20 AM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed the aides were just in there getting Resident #29 up out of bed and the LPN stated that they were observed leaving the room around 11:00 AM. Record review of Resident #29's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnosis that included Multiple Myeloma not having achieved remission and Secondary Malignant Neoplasm of Bone. An observation on 5/28/24 at 1:00 PM, revealed the resident sitting up in her wheelchair in the resident's room with continuous moaning that could be heard in the hallway and continued to have furrowed brows and facial grimacing. Record review of Resident #29's physicians orders revealed an order dated 3/15/24 for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen tablet 5-325 milligrams (mg) by (via) PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube) every 4 (four) hours as needed for pain. Record review of Resident #29's May 2024 Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed the resident has received 9 (nine) Hydrocodone pills as needed in the last 29 days with the last administration being 5/27/24 at 1:47 AM. An interview on 5/29/24 at 10:20 AM, with Resident #29's husband who is her representative revealed it is hard to tell when she is hurting so they just give her pain medicine sometimes. He stated she has Multiple Myeloma that deteriorates the resident's bones, so it hurts her when they have to move her. An interview on 5/29/24 at 10:45 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 confirmed that Resident #29 moans most of the time, but when they get her up or move her, she moans even louder. She stated that she has told the nurses before that she thinks the resident is hurting, but she has not told them that every time they get her up or move her that she moans out like this. An interview on 5/29/24 at 11:00 AM, with LPN #2 and Registered Nurse (RN) #1 confirmed that Resident #29 moaned all of the time, but they give her pain medicine when her moaning increased or has gotten louder because that was how they could tell when she was hurting. They confirmed that the resident had a cancer that affected her bones, so it probably did hurt when she was moved or transferred. They revealed that the resident did not get pain medicine with transfers but could see how that would be a good idea. An interview on 5/29/24 at 11:15 AM, with CNA #3 confirmed that Resident #29's moaning would increase when they got her up or moved her and she was sure it was because of pain. An interview on 5/29/24 at 12:00 PM, with RN/Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse confirmed that Resident #29 had a diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma and movement probably increased the resident's pain. She revealed she did the pain assessment for Resident #29's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and confirmed that the resident moans a lot. She stated that the only way to know for sure the resident is in pain is if her moaning increased, but there would be no way to tell what the pain level was on a scale of 1-10, because the resident is unable to verbalize that information. She stated that receiving a pain pill 9 times in the last 29 days was probably not enough for this resident. She stated that she feels like the resident is to a point where she could use a more continuous type of pain medication. An interview on 5/29/24 at 1:55 PM, with Nurse Practitioner (NP) confirmed that Resident #29 had Multiple Myeloma that more than likely caused pain with movement. She revealed that on the resident's initial assessment in 3/2024, she discovered the resident had spasticity in her right posterior neck with pain and she started her on a muscle relaxer. She confirmed that the resident had PRN pain pills ordered, but it was hard to tell with this resident if she was in pain except that her moaning would change. She stated that maybe they should consider changing her order of PRN pain pills to be given before transfer or scheduled. An interview on 5/29/24 at 3:30 PM, with the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed that Resident #29 probably needs something scheduled for pain with a diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma. She confirmed that the resident moans almost all of the time, but her moaning does get a different pitch to it when they think she is in pain. She confirmed that it would be impossible for the resident to give them a pain scale of 1-10 or let them know if she is relieved from the pain medication. She stated that a resident with Multiple Myeloma probably needs more than 9 pain pills in 29 days for pain control. Review of Resident #29's MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/18/24 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, which indicated the resident is severely cognitively impaired and in Section J that the resident had pain that is indicated with nonverbal sounds.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's personal property was safeguarded, and that staff did not misappropriate property f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's personal property was safeguarded, and that staff did not misappropriate property for one (1) of 56 residents residing in the facility. Resident #23. Based on actions taken by the facility on 5/23/24, this was determined to be Past Non-Compliance. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with a revision date of 3/15/204 revealed under, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property . Record review of the internal investigation conducted by the Administrator (ADM) dated 5/22/2024 for Resident #23 revealed, On May 21, 2024, at 3:30 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) reported to me that she suspected Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1, had taken a bottle of lotion from an elder (Resident). The DON reported that today around 2:55 PM, CNA #1 was in her office. She was speaking with her, and proper name of employee and picked up a pair of jogging pants out of a bag in the office to show them something. The DON happened to notice a bottle of lotion in the bag that was the same kind she had purchased and put into a gift basket for two of our elders for their birthday on Sunday. The DON went on to say that CNA #1 made the comment that the bag was hers . At this time, CNA #1 picked up the bag and exited the building towards the parking lot. The DON reported that she then went to the rooms of the elder that she had made birthday baskets for on Sunday and noticed that she did not see the lotion in the basket she had given Elder #23 . Upon review of camera footage, CNA #1 was seen at 2:40 PM exiting Elder #23's room and placing the bottle of lotion into the right leg scrub pocket of her scrubs. This is a large bottle of lotion, and the top portion of the bottle can be seen in the pocket as CNA #1 walks up the hall and enters the DON's office at 2:41 PM. Abuse by means of misappropriation can be substantiated related to this incident . An observation of Resident #23 on 5/28/2024 at 10:26 AM, revealed she was alert to name only. An interview with Resident #23's daughter on 5/28/2024 at 2:32 PM, revealed her mother was not cognizant and would not be aware of any missing personal items. She explained that the facility called and notified her sister about the missing bottle of lotion after it happened. She revealed they did not buy the lotion; it came in a gift basket the facility provided for her mother's birthday. The daughter stated both she and her sister came to the facility and looked through her mother's personal items, but were unable to find the lotion. On 5/29/2024 at 2:20 PM, review of the camera footage captured on 5/21/2024 at 2:38 PM revealed, CNA #1 entered Resident #23's room with no lotion visible in her pant pockets and later exits the room while placing a white bottle into her right scrub pant pocket. She was then seen walking down the hallway with the upper portion of the white bottle visible in her right pocket, and entered an office. An interview with the DON on 5/29/2024 at 2:40 PM, revealed CNA #1 had a bag in her office the day of the incident because she had bought her a jogging suit. The DON explained that she observed a bottle of lotion in CNA #1's bag that looked identical to the bottle that she had purchased and given out to Elder #23 in a gift basket over the weekend. She revealed after CNA #1 picked up the bag and left for the day, she went down to Elder #23's room and was unable to locate the lotion in the gift basket. She revealed she spoke with the Administrator (ADM) and notified her. The DON explained that they reviewed the camera footage, which confirmed that CNA #1 went into the resident's room and came out with the lotion bottle and placed it in her pocket. She revealed they called and notified CNA #1 that she was suspended pending the investigation. The DON revealed CNA #1 denied the allegation and revealed that she had brought the lotion to work with her to use on the Elders. An interview with the ADM on 5/29/2024 at 3:26 PM, confirmed through investigation of the camera footage and witness statements the misappropriation of Resident #23's property was substantiated and CNA #1 was terminated. A telephone interview with CNA #1 on 5/30/2024 at 10:32 AM, revealed she was called by the ADM and told that she was caught on a camera recording taking some lotion out of Resident #23's room. She revealed that she did not take the lotion and explained that she brought her lotion to work to use because she had sensitive skin. CNA #1 stated she kept her lotion in her pocket all day, which was what the camera caught. The SA validated through record review that an in-service was conducted on Abuse/Neglect on 5/21/24 with all staff with sign in sheets. The SA validated through interview with the Administrator and record review of the facility investigation that an investigation was conducted, CNA #1 was suspended and terminated on 5/23/24. The SA determined this to be Past Non-Compliance. Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/13/2024 revealed, under section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 6, which indicated that Resident #23 is severely cognitively impaired. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #23 on 6/21/2022 with a medical diagnosis of unspecified dementia.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

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 send a written notice to the resident...

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 send a written notice to the resident representative regarding a resident being transferred to the hospital for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident #8 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge dated 10/2022, revealed under, Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .#4. The facility's transfer/discharge notice will be provided to the resident and the resident's representative in a language and manner in which they can understand . Record review of Resident #8's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the resident was hospitalized for a possible head injury due to a fall. An interview on 5/29/24 at 11:05 AM, with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Medical Records revealed she does not mail a transfer/discharge notice to the resident representative when the resident is discharged . She stated that there is a form in the facilities electronic record system that they complete and send with the resident when they go to the hospital, but that form is not mailed or saved, and the computer system deletes it after 30 days. She admitted that she was not aware of the regulation to send a written notice when a resident is transferred or discharged . An interview on 5/29/24 at 4:40 PM, with the Administrator confirmed the facility was not sending written notices to the representative for transfer/discharges and was unaware of the regulation to do so and stated they would work on developing something and get started doing that. Review of Resident #8's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia, mild with other behavioral disturbances.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for a resident dependent...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for a resident dependent on staff for shaving for one (1) of sixteen sampled residents. Resident #17 Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy titled Grooming a Resident's Facial Hair undated, revealed under, Policy: It is the practice of this facility to assist residents with grooming facial hair to meet their preference. An observation of Resident #17, on 5/28/2024 at 11:06 AM, revealed he was sitting in a wheelchair in the day room. Gray facial hair observed on the sides of his face and above his lip, measuring approximately one-fourth (1/4) inch in length. An interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 on 5/29/2024 at 10:50 AM, revealed Resident #17 gets a shower on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday during the 3-11 shift. She confirmed the resident was unshaven, and reveled the resident should have been shaved yesterday, which would have been his scheduled shower day. An interview with Resident #17 on 5/29/2024 at 1:38 PM, revealed he preferred to be clean-shaven and voiced that he wanted to be shaved every other day. An observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/29/2024 at 1:44 PM, confirmed Resident #17 had long facial hair. She revealed her expectation was for the aides to shave the male residents on their shower days. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #17 on 11/14/2023 with a medical diagnosis of unspecified dementia.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to safely store narcotics in the medication room refrigerator for one (1) of two (2) medication rooms in the facility. (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to safely store narcotics in the medication room refrigerator for one (1) of two (2) medication rooms in the facility. (100 hall medication room) Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Controlled Substance Administration and Accountability, with an implementation dated of 10/2022, revealed it is the policy of this facility to promote safe, high quality patient care, compliant with state and federal regulations regarding monitoring the use of controlled substances. The facility will have safeguards in place in order to prevent loss, diversion or accidental exposure. An observation of the 100-hall medication room on 05/29/24 at 4:20 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed one vial of Ativan two (2) milligrams/one (1) milliliter in a clear plastic box in the refrigerator. The Ativan was not in a compartment secured to the refrigerator. This was confirmed by LPN #1. An observation and interview, on 05/30/24 at 9:10 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the injectable Ativan was not in a separately locked permanently affixed compartment in the refrigerator. She stated that she understands that the box could easily be removed from the refrigerator. She stated she could see how it could get mixed up in all the things in the refrigerator and not be noticed if it was missing. A telephone interview, on 5/30/24 at 10:00 AM, with the Pharmacy Consultant revealed that they had discussed this in the past and he thought they had put what needed to be done in place.
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store a respiratory suctioning device in a manner that prevented the possibility of the spread ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store a respiratory suctioning device in a manner that prevented the possibility of the spread of infection for one (1) of two (2) residents with suction devices. Resident #23 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program undated, revealed under, Policy: This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections as per accepted national standards and guidelines. An observation of Resident #23 on 5/28/2024 at 10:26 AM and 2:29 PM, revealed a suction machine with the attached tubing was placed on the floor beside the resident's bed, with an unbagged yankauer suction tool lying on the floor. Record review of the Order Summary Report for Resident #23 revealed an order dated 1/27/2024, Bedside suction with yankauer as needed for increased secretions. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 5/29/2024 at 10:24 AM, confirmed the suction device being on the floor and unbagged was an infection control concern and the suction device must be replaced with a new one. She revealed when respiratory equipment was not in use, it should be bagged to keep the device clean and prevent the spread of infection. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/29/2024 at 10:31 AM, revealed the purpose of keeping respiratory equipment in a bag when not in use was to keep the items clean to prevent the spread of infection. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #23 on 6/21/2022 with a medical diagnosis of unspecified dementia.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

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 provide the Notice of Medicare Non-C...

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 provide the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage to two (2) of three (3) residents discharged from Medicare Part A services with service times remaining. Resident #27 and Resident #49 Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Advanced Beneficiary Notices, with revision date of October 2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide timely notices regarding Medicare eligibility and coverage. Review of facility policy also revealed, 5. The current CMS-approved version of the forms shall be used at the time of issuance to the beneficiary (resident or resident representative). The contents of the form shall comply with related instructions and regulations regarding the use of the form. a. For Part A items and services, the facility shall use the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice, . c. A Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage . shall be issued to the resident/representative when Medicare covered service(s) are ending, no matter if resident is leaving the facility or remaining in the facility. This informs the resident on how to request an appeal or expedited determination from their Quality Improvement Organization. i. This notice is used when all covered services end for coverage reasons. ii. An exhaustion of benefits is not considered a termination for 'coverage' reasons. An interview with the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) on 03/08/23 at 11:55 AM, revealed she was the person responsible for completing the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notifications for residents that were discharged from skilled services with time remaining on their Part A services. She stated she was unaware that a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form had to be provided to each resident or the resident's representative when they were discharged from skilled services with time remaining. She stated she thought that this form was only needed when the resident had a Medicare Advantage Plan and she confirmed that she had not provided this form to the residents as required and it was due to being unaware of the requirement. An interview with the Administrator on 3/8/23 at 3:15 PM, revealed she was aware of the requirement for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage to be provided to the resident or to the resident representative and she had even done these at another facility, but she was unaware this was not being done at this facility. She confirmed the facility failed to complete the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage for the residents who were discharged with time remaining on their Part A coverage. Record review of Resident #27's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Surgical Amputation of left leg below knee. Record review of Resident #27's Beneficiary Protection Notification Review revealed resident's Medicare Part A skilled services episode start date of 9/2/22 and last covered day of Part A service was 9/30/22. This form revealed the facility/provider initiated the discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted. Review of this form revealed the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form was not provided to the resident. Record review of Resident #49's admission Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Displaced Spiral Fracture of Shaft of Left Femur. Record review of Resident #49's Beneficiary Protection Notification Review revealed resident's Medicare Part A skilled services episode start date of 1/30/23 and last covered day of Part A service was 2/28/23. This form revealed the facility/provider initiated the discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted. Review of this form revealed the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form was not provided to the resident.
Feb 2020 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

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to submit an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment regarding medication administration for one (1) of 15 M...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to submit an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment regarding medication administration for one (1) of 15 MDSs reviewed. Resident #27. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Resident Assessment - RAI, dated 10/2016, revealed, this facility makes a comprehensive assessment of each resident's needs, strengths, goals, life history and preferences, using the resident assessment instrument (RAI) specified by CMS. Record review of Resident #27's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Section N, dated 12/23/2019, revealed Resident #27 received an anticoagulant medication for seven of the seven (7 of 7) look back day period. Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed Resident #27 did not have a physician's order for the administration of an anticoagulant medication. The medical records did not reveal Resident #27 had received an anticoagulant medication. On 2/19/2020 at 10:00 AM, the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, stated she was responsible for entering Resident #27's information into the MDS system. The MDS Coordinator stated during the 12/23/2019 MDS assessment, the resident was not receiving an anticoagulant medication, but she was receiving an antibiotic. The MDS Coordinator stated she failed to accurately enter the medication as an antibiotic, as ordered, instead of an anticoagulant. On 02/20/20 at 1:39 PM, during an interview, the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #27's MDS was inaccurately completed and submitted. She stated accurate completion of the MDS information is important for proper documentation of the resident's needs and care areas.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and clean dietary environment for the storage and service of foods to the residents for two (2) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and clean dietary environment for the storage and service of foods to the residents for two (2) of two (2) dietary tours. Findings include: Review of the facility policy #4079, titled, Dining Services - Cleaning Ovens dated 02/01/2020, revealed the objective was to ensure equipment is cleaned and in good working condition and ovens will be cleaned and sanitized weekly. This is the responsibility of the dining service cooks/utilities. During initial tour of the Dietary Department, on 2/18/2020 at 10:30 AM, an observation revealed in the walk-in refrigerator with these undated and unlabeled food items: A container of eight (8) boiled eggs, one bowl of chopped meat, three (3) containers of pureed foods, a bowl of scrambled eggs, approximately one-half of a nine (9) to 11 pound turkey breast and ham. These items were removed by the Director of Dining Services (DDS) at this time. An observation, on 2/18/2020 at 10:45 AM, of the stand-alone refrigerator near the serving line, revealed trays containing two (2) glasses of water, one (1) glass of tea, two (2) bowls of pureed bread, two (2) bowls of pudding, two (2) glasses of buttermilk, six (6) glasses of tomato juice, one (1) glass of strawberry Ensure, four (4) glasses of nectar thick sweetened tea, and four (4) glasses of nectar thickened water without a date or label. On the bottom shelf there was eight (8) cups of mandarin oranges and one (1) cup of sliced peaches not covered or dated. One of the cups of oranges had a piece of grated cheese in it that fallen out of a salad that was on the shelf above it. The Registered Dietician (RD) removed the cup of mardarin oranges containing the cheese from the refrigerator. There was a two quart pitcher of tea and a two quart pitcher with a small amount of tomato juice barely covering the bottom of the pitcher on the top shelf. Neither of these was labeled or dated. The RD removed the pitcher of tomato juice from the refrigerator. An interview, on 2/18/2020 at 10:50 AM, with the RD, confirmed that all food and drinks should be labeled and dated. She stated she guessed they weren't because they usually throw away everything left over after the meal. She confirmed the cheese should not have been in the bowl of mandarin oranges. She stated that she didn't know why the pitcher of tomato juice was in the refrigerator because it was empty. An interview, on 2/18/2020 at 10:55 AM, with the DDS, confirmed that containers of food put in the refrigerators should be labeled and dated. He stated some of the things like the scrambled eggs should not have been in the refrigerator, they should have been thrown away. An observation, on 2/19/2020 at 11:45 AM, revealed the entire inside of the convection oven was covered with a dark brown coating. The oven racks were coated with a black charred material and the door ledge was covered with black flakes and brownish food particles. During an interview, on 2/19/2020 at 12:30 PM, with the Director of Dining Services (DDS), he stated the convection oven needed to be taken care of immediately. He stated the carbon build-up and charred food could cause a fire. The DDS stated the kitchen staff should do daily cleaning and he thought deep cleaning was done by maintenance because they did not have the chemicals in the kitchen needed for deep cleaning. An interview, with the RD, on 2/19/2020 at 12:35 PM, revealed no prior cleaning schedules were available because the new company people had come in and thrown everything away last night. An interview, on 2/20/20 at 12;20 PM, with the Administrator (ADM), revealed the ovens had been cleaned last night. The ADM stated he had a smoker at his house that was cleaner than the oven. He stated that he eats in the kitchen and he did not want to get sick and he did not want his residents to get sick. He stated the DDS is responsible for looking at and monitoring these kitchen problems. The ADM stated the new company had cleaned out all their previous papers, schedules and policies.
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
  • • 34% turnover. Below Mississippi's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $10,033 in fines. Above average for Mississippi. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 68/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Trinity Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Trinity Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Trinity Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 8 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Trinity Healthcare Center?

TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COLUMBUS, Mississippi.

How Does Trinity Healthcare Center Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (34%) 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 Trinity Healthcare Center?

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 Trinity Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Trinity Healthcare Center Stick Around?

TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Trinity Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $10,033 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Mississippi average of $33,179. 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 Trinity Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

TRINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER 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.