WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY

70 MEDICAL PLAZA, EUPORA, MS 39744 (662) 258-9310
Non profit - Corporation 36 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
63/100
#91 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Webster Health Services Nursing Facility has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #91 out of 200 nursing homes in Mississippi, placing it in the top half, and is the best option out of two facilities in Webster County. However, the facility's performance is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from one in 2024 to three in 2025. Staffing is a strength, earning a 4 out of 5 stars with a 31% turnover rate, which is significantly lower than the state average. On the downside, the facility has incurred $12,335 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include a serious failure to ensure the safety of a resident when bed rails were installed without proper assessment or consent, posing an entrapment risk. Additionally, the facility inaccurately completed important health assessments for several residents, which could affect their care. Lastly, there was a concerning incident involving a resident with a feeding tube who did not receive appropriate care, which highlights potential gaps in medical oversight. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and ranking, the facility must address these serious deficiencies to ensure resident safety and care quality.

Trust Score
C+
63/100
In Mississippi
#91/200
Top 45%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$12,335 in fines. Higher than 97% of Mississippi facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Mississippi. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 3 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 (31%)

    17 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Mississippi average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $12,335

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 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 staff interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete section I (active diagnoses) and O (speci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete section I (active diagnoses) and O (special treatments and programs) of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for four (4) of 14 sampled residents. Resident #6, #7, #29, and #34 Findings include: Review of facility letterhead revealed, (Proper name of facility) Long Term Care follows the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Regulatory Requirements. This was signed by the Administrator and dated 8/20/25. Resident #6 Record review of Resident #6's Order dated 6/26/25 revealed, Admit to Hospice. Record review of the MDS Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/30/25 did not indicate hospice service was received by Resident #6. During an interview on 8/19/25 at 3:20 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the MDS assessment's purpose was to reflect each resident's health status at the time of the assessment. Resident #6 was admitted to hospice service on 6/26/25 and the MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate the resident received hospice services. She confirmed her expectation was for the assessment to be completed correctly, and the facility failed to submit an accurate assessment on 6/30/25 for a resident who received hospice services. Record review of Resident #6's Demographics form revealed an admission date of 3/17/25. Record review of Resident #6's Hospital Problems revealed a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Record review of Resident #6's MDS Section C - Cognitive Patterns dated 6/30/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #7 Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 6/9/25 revealed under section I (active diagnoses), Resident #7 was coded for having a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Record review of the “Hospital Problem List” revealed Resident #7 did not have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 8/19/25 at 3:20 PM revealed Resident #7’s MDS was coded in error and confirmed the resident did not have a bipolar diagnosis. She revealed her expectations were for the MDS to be checked for accuracy before the assessment was closed and submitted. Record review of the Demographics” revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 4/1/20 with medical diagnoses that included History of Cerebrovascular Accident and Left Sided Hemiparesis. Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 6/9/25 revealed under section C, a BIMS summary score of 15, indicating Resident #7 was cognitively intact. Resident #29 Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD of 5/20/25 revealed under section I (active diagnoses), Resident #29 was marked for having a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Record review of the “Hospital Problem List” revealed Resident #29 did not have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 8/19/25 at 3:23 PM revealed Resident #29’s MDS was coded in error and confirmed the resident did not have a bipolar diagnosis. Review of the “Demographics” revealed the facility admitted Resident #29 on 9/2/24 with medical diagnoses that included Closed Fracture of First Lumbar Vertebra with Routine Healing. Review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 5/20/25 revealed under section C, a BIMS summary score of 13, indicating Resident #29 was cognitively intact. Resident #34 Record review of Order dated 6/24/24 for Resident #34 revealed, Resident on hospice. Record review of Resident #34's MDS Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs dated 5/26/25 did not indicate the resident received hospice services. During an interview on 8/19/25 at 3:21 PM, the DON revealed the MDS assessment reflected the health status of each resident and should be entered accurately. She stated Resident #34 was admitted to hospice on 6/19/24. She confirmed her expectation was for the assessment to be completed correctly and the facility failed to submit the 5/26/25 assessment accurately for a resident who received hospice services. Record review of Resident #34's Demographics record revealed an admission date of 7/5/21. Record review of Resident #34's Hospital Problems list revealed diagnoses of Congestive Heart Failure and Advanced Dementia. Record review of Resident #6's MDS Section C Cognitive Patterns with ARD of 5/26/25 revealed a BIMS score of 2 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment.
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, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care for one (1) of two (2) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care for one (1) of two (2) residents with a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Resident #20Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Feeding: Gastrostomy, PEG, Jejunostomy, unrevised, revealed under Policy: It is the policy of ‘Proper name of the facility' that residents unable or unwilling to ingest oral nutrients should be properly provided nutrition and care.During an observation of a medication pass on 8/20/2025 at 12:10 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, she checked placement of Resident #20's feeding tube and withdrew three and one-half (3 1/2) 60 ml (milliliter) syringes of beige-colored gastric residual. She placed the contents into a non-measurable white Styrofoam cup, administered the resident's medication, and discarded the gastric residual by flushing it down the toilet.An interview with LPN #1 on 8/20/25 at 12:32 PM revealed Resident #20 had 150 cc's (cubic centimeters) of gastric residual and confirmed she did not return the residual contents back to the resident. LPN #1 revealed that Resident #20 received a bolus feeding at 10 AM and acknowledged that failing to return the stomach contents resulted in a lost feeding, which could lead to fluid and nutrient imbalance and possible weight loss.An interview with the Director of Nursing on 8/20/25 at 12:44 PM confirmed Resident #20's gastric residual should have been returned. She acknowledged that failure to do so could result in weight loss or electrolyte imbalance and stated this was a standard of nursing practice.Record review of the Demographics revealed the facility admitted Resident #20 on 8/2/24 with medical diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction due to Unspecified Occlusion, Dysphagia, and Encounter for Attention to Gastrostomy.Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/14/25 revealed under section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 13, indicating Resident #20 was cognitively intact.
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 follow infection prevention and control practices during blood glucose monitoring by not using ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection prevention and control practices during blood glucose monitoring by not using a barrier and by cleaning the multiuse glucometer with an agent that was not effective against bloodborne pathogens for three (3) of eight (8) resident care opportunities observed. Resident # 8, Resident #22, and Resident #36Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled “Care of Equipment: Cleaning, Disinfecting, and Storage,” revised 1/10/24, revealed under “Cleaning and Disinfecting: Any equipment/devices entering the room or treatment area should be cleaned and disinfected between patient use with the approved disinfectant and according to the manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU), regardless of whether or not the equipment is visibly soiled. (e.g., glucometer) . During an observation on 8/19/2025 at 3:56 PM with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, she entered Resident #22’s room and placed the glucometer on the bedside table without a barrier. After completing the blood glucose reading, she exited the room and briefly wiped the end of the glucometer (at the strip insertion site) with an alcohol prep. CNA #1 then entered Resident #36’s room, placed the glucometer on the bedside table without a barrier while prepping the resident’s finger, and after completing the blood glucose reading, briefly swiped the end of the glucometer with an alcohol pad. Lastly, CNA #1 entered Resident #8’s room and placed the glucometer on the bedside table without a barrier. After obtaining the glucose reading, she again briefly swiped the glucometer with an alcohol wipe. Further observation revealed a bottle of Clorox Disinfecting Wipes available for use on the rolling cart, which was never used. An interview with CNA #1 on 8/19/25 at 4:16 PM confirmed she did not use a barrier during blood glucose monitoring. She acknowledged the purpose of using a barrier was to prevent cross contamination. She stated she used an alcohol wipe to clean the glucometer and reported that administration told her it was acceptable. CNA #1 explained she had Clorox wipes available but used them only after finishing all glucose checks to disinfect the machine. She admitted that not using a barrier and not cleaning the glucometer with the appropriate disinfecting agent between residents could cause the spread of infection. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 8/19/25 at 4:27 PM revealed the multiuse glucometer should be cleaned with the available Clorox wipes. She stated CNA #1 had been trained on using and properly disinfecting the machine. The Director of Nursing also confirmed that a barrier should be used to prevent cross contamination and the spread of infection. Record review of the “Demographics” revealed the facility admitted Resident #8 on 4/28/22 with a medical diagnosis that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/23/25 revealed under section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 13, indicating Resident #8 was cognitively intact. Record review of the “Demographics” revealed the facility admitted Resident #22 on 11/1/21 with a medical diagnosis that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease. Record review of the MDS with an ARD of 7/2/25 revealed under section C, a BIMS summary score of 99, indicating Resident #22 could not complete the interview. Record review of the “Demographics” revealed the facility admitted Resident #36 on 11/18/24 with a medical diagnosis that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. Record review of the MDS with an ARD of 8/4/25 revealed under section C, a BIMS summary score of 6, indicating Resident #36 was severely cognitively impaired.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the safety of a resident when bilateral side rails were applied to the middle of a reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the safety of a resident when bilateral side rails were applied to the middle of a residents' bed without assessing the resident for alternative safety methods, risk for entrapment, and failed to obtain informed consent prior to installation of bedrails for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Resident #6. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Side Rails, revised June 14, 2023, revealed Rationale: To provide guidelines for safe and effective use of bed rails in the patient care environment . An observation of Resident #6's room on 1/23/24 at 10:30 AM, revealed side rails in the up position bilaterally on each side of the bed. An observation of measurements taken of Resident #6's bed and side rails by the maintenance staff on 1/24/24 at 2:00 PM, revealed the bed mattress length measurement was 79 inches long. The length of the open space from the headboard to the top of the rail and bottom of the rail to the foot board measured 26 inches long respectively, and the side rails bilaterally measured 26 ½ inches long. The bed rails were bilaterally in the middle of the bed. An observation on 1/24/24 at 9:00 AM, revealed bilateral side rails up in the middle of Resident #6's bed, with a padding noted to top of the first bar of the side rail, with the two bars below observed to have no padding, and the two lateral bars on the side rails had no padding. Resident is observed sticking her arms into the side rails. A record review of the Skin Tear Report dated 10/9/23 for Resident #6 revealed, bleeding from right leg, three (3) skin tears noted two (2) cm (centimeters) x 0.5 cm, (1) one cm x (1) one cm moon shaped, and 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm. Blood was noted on the right side bed rail, orders to clean skin tears with normal saline (NS), pat dry, apply steri-strips, cover with telfa, wrap with gauze dressing. A record review of Skin Tear Report for Resident #6 dated 1/08/24, revealed CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) reported when she entered room, resident had legs over the side of the head of the bed (HOB), blood was noted on the sheets, skin tear noted behind left knee .Resident has issues with skin tears due to fragile skin related to leukemia and trying to get out of the bed. A record review of the Skin Tear Report dated 1/23/24 for Resident #6, revealed CNA reported while getting resident dressed for bed she was hitting at staff and hit the bed rail, skin tear occurred, triangle in shape, two (2) cm on each side .skin tear to arm .they gently tried to remove her arm from side rail . An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 1/24/24 at 10:00 AM, she revealed she cares for Resident #6 often and revealed she often attempts to get out of the bed, resists care at times, and has hit her arms and legs on the side rails causing skin tears because she is so small, and her skin is thin and fragile. LPN #1 confirmed Resident #6 obtained a skin tear on 1/23/24 when she began hitting at staff and hit her right arm on the side rail causing a skin tear. An interview with CNA #2 on 1/24/24 at 10:20 AM, reported that Resident #6 is very active and always moving around. She confirmed she has observed Resident #6 with her legs and feet over the side rails and sometimes her hands and arms have been in between the the side rail bars. An interview with CNA #1 on 1/24/24 at 10:30 AM, revealed she has not cared for Resident #6 when she actually obtained a skin tear, but she has reported to multiple staff that the resident attempts to get out of bed throwing her arms and legs over the side rails. She has also had her arms between the bars on the side rails which she was able to easily remove without injuring the resident. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/24/24 at 11:00 AM, revealed she was unable to find any side rail assessments for safety, risk of entrapment, any alternative methods attempted prior to use of the side rails, or a consent for use of the side rails for Resident #6. She confirmed Resident# 6 has had multiple skin tears related to hitting her arms on the side rails. She confirmed after review of the Skin Tear Reports the reports dated 10/9/23 skin tears times three to right lower leg, 1/08/24 skin tear behind left knee, and 1/23/24 skin tear to right forearm were from Resident #6 hitting/bumping her extremities on the side rails. The DON then revealed the resident does have padding to the side rail to help prevent skin tears but confirmed the resident was still at risk for receiving skin tears because the entire side rail was not padded and confirmed the resident was at risk for entrapment in getting her arms and legs caught between the the rails and could possibly come over the rails and fall. Record review of the resident information form revealed the facility admitted Resident # 6 on 9/18/2023 with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified severity without behavior/psych/mood, and Anxiety. Record review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Section C with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/25/23, revealed Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which indicated that she was severely cognitively impaired. Section K revealed Resident #6 was 61 inches in height and weighed 98 pounds.
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
  • • 31% turnover. Below Mississippi'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.
  • • $12,335 in fines. Above average for Mississippi. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 63/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Mississippi, 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty Staffed?

CMS rates WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY during 2024 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty?

WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY 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 36 certified beds and approximately 34 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EUPORA, Mississippi.

How Does Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (31%) 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty?

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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY 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 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty Stick Around?

WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty Ever Fined?

WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY has been fined $12,335 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Mississippi average of $33,202. 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 Webster Health Services Nursing Facilty on Any Federal Watch List?

WEBSTER HEALTH SERVICES NURSING FACILTY 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.