MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH

309 MAGNOLIA DR/HIGHWAY 35 SOUTH, RALEIGH, MS 39153 (601) 782-4244
For profit - Limited Liability company 110 Beds MISSISSIPPI CARE CENTER Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#18 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

MS Care Center of Raleigh has earned a Trust Grade of A, indicating it is excellent and highly recommended among nursing homes. It ranks #18 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the top half, and it is the only option in Smith County. The facility's trend is stable, with one issue reported in both 2024 and 2025, and it maintains a good staffing rating with a turnover of 39%, which is below the state average. However, the center has encountered some concerns, including a failure to properly label and date prepared foods, which could lead to contamination risks, and issues with maintaining a sanitary environment in resident rooms, as evidenced by excessive rust in some areas. Overall, while it has strong staffing and no fines, families should be aware of these areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Mississippi
#18/200
Top 9%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
1 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% 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 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Mississippi. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 1 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 (39%)

    9 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: MISSISSIPPI CARE CENTER

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to label and date prepared foods in the refrigerator and freezer and failed to prevent the possible spr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to label and date prepared foods in the refrigerator and freezer and failed to prevent the possible spread of infection when a kitchen staff member failed to wear a beard guard while preparing plates for the dining hall for one (1) of four (4) days of kitchen observation. Findings include: A review of the facility's Food Storage Labeling policy, revised 8/24, revealed, .Procedure .2. All food items that are not in their original container must be labeled with the common name of the food and the use by date. 3. Foods that are prepared and stored for later service must be labeled and dated . A review of the facility's Employee Work Practices policy, revised 10/17, revealed, .Procedure .2. Proper Work Attire .c. The food service employee observes the following dress standards .iii. Food handlers with facial hair wear a beard restraint . On 02/10/2025 at 10:24 AM, during an initial tour with the Dietary Manager (DM), an observation was made of the refrigerator of one (1) pot of peas and carrots, one (1) pan of uncooked beef burger patties, one (1) pan of yeast rolls, mashed potatoes, beef fingers, cooked rice, and corn-all covered in aluminum foil without a preparation date, description, or use-by date. The DM confirmed that the food items were not labeled with the date, description, or use-by date as required by facility policy. On 02/10/2025 at 11:25 AM, during an observation, a male kitchen worker was observed preparing meal trays for residents without wearing a beard guard. On 02/11/2025 at 9:57 AM, during an interview, a kitchen staff worker stated that staff had recently been in-serviced regarding food dating and labeling. On 02/12/2025 at 10:00 AM, during an interview, the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated that the facility's policy for food preparation required all stored food to be labeled with a date and description on the outside of the container. The RD confirmed that staff were required to wear hair restraints while in the kitchen and stated that the male kitchen worker had forgotten to put on a beard restraint. The RD further stated that the expectation for staff was to follow policy and prepare food according to proper food safety guidelines. On 02/13/2025 at 11:56 AM, during an interview, the Administrator stated that the expectation for kitchen staff was to follow facility policies to safely prepare food and prevent the spread of infection among residents. The Administrator stated that food safety measures were essential to ensuring that residents received meals that met their preferences and nutritional needs.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment as evidenced by resident rooms with excessive rust on the ceiling grids for two (2) of nine (9) resident rooms observed on the North Hall. rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] Findings Included: A review of the facility's policy, revised 9/2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide services based on the following regulation .Safe/Functional/Sanitary/Comfortable Environment .The facility will provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public . On 9/12/24 at 11:15 AM, in an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] on the North Hall, the metal ceiling grids were excessively discolored with rust. The rusted areas were more excessive over the beds that were near the windows in the room. On 9/12/24 at 12:10 PM, in an interview and observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] with Housekeeper #1, she confirmed the ceiling grids were excessively rusted. She explained she had worked on the North Hall for approximately one (1) month and had not noticed the rusted ceiling grids. On 9/12/24 at 2:15 PM, in an interview and observation of rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] with the Maintenance Director, he confirmed the ceiling grids were rusted and was unsure why the grids were more rusted in the two rooms above the beds than other places throughout the facility. He stated he felt like the rust was caused by using aerosol disinfecting products during the COVID-19 pandemic. He explained he would repair the grids and that he had not gotten to it yet. On 9/12/24 at 4:15 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, she explained she was not aware of the rusted ceiling grids in the rooms but acknowledged the facility utilized aerosol disinfectant during COVID-19.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's privacy as evidenced by posting of clinical care signage on the resident's wall for one two (2) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's privacy as evidenced by posting of clinical care signage on the resident's wall for one two (2) of 20 sampled residents. Resident #32 and Resident #10. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Personal Privacy/Confidentiality of Record, undated, revealed the document did not address clinical care signage in resident rooms. Resident #32 On 08/01/23 at 10:40 AM, an observation revealed there were signs posted on the resident's wall over the bed as follows: 1. When resident is in the bed ensure bed is in its lowest position with fall mat beside bed before exiting. 2. Nectar thickened liquids. 3. 201B Meal Instructions 1. Assist with all meals, 2. Slow rate, 3. Give one sip then swallow, 4. Give small bites/small sips, 5. Keep upright during meals and 30 min after meals. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 01:35 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed that she acknowledged the signage was posted in resident's room but was unsure of who had placed it. She stated she believed it was possibly the hospice company. Resident #10 On 08/01/23 at 01:35 PM, an observation revealed there were signs posted on the resident's wall over the bed as follows: 1. When resident is in the bed ensure bed is in its lowest position with fall mat beside bed before exiting. 2. Keep head of bed elevated at all times On 08/01/23 at 02:02 PM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 Charge Nurse, revealed the signage had been posted due to the removal of bed rails and the staff placed the signs as a reminder to place the beds in the lowest position. The charge nurse removed the signage during the interview and stated that reminders could be placed on the kiosks used by the Certified Nursing Aides (CNAs). On 08/01/23 at 02:41 PM, in an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she acknowledged the posted signage and stated the facility would remove the signs or place them so that only staff could view the information.
Mar 2020 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to serve food in a safe and sanitary condition to prevent the possible spread of infection and contami...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to serve food in a safe and sanitary condition to prevent the possible spread of infection and contamination, during one (1) of two (2) kitchen observation. The identified concerns placed all residents receiving food/nourishment from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illnesses. Findings include: A review of the facility's Food Service Operational Standards For Purchasing, Cooking and Storage policy, undated, revealed: This facility stores, prepares, distributes, and serves food under sanitary conditions to prevent the spread of food borne illness and to reduce those practices that result in food contamination and compromised food safety. Avoid overloading cooking surfaces. Wash, rinse, and sanitize all equipment and utensils before and after each use. Review of the facility's Hand Washing Policy, undated, revealed, handwashing would be done by all staff throughout their shift, and to reduce the transmission of organisms from resident to resident, and from the staff to the resident. A review of the facility's Cleaning and Sanitizing Equipment policy, undated, revealed: All equipment is kept clean and food contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized. Remove food and soil from under and around the equipment. Remove detachable parts and manually wash, rinse, and sanitize or run through dish machine. Allow to air dry. Wash and rinse fixed food contact surfaces, then wipe or spray with a chemical sanitizing solution. Review of the facility's training record, titled Safety and Dietary Procedures, dated 02/26/2020, revealed the dietary staff was in-serviced on Food Storage, Food Preparation, Food Service/Sanitation, Safety, Food Temperature and other Safety Measures, which included cross contamination, handwashing, cleaning surfaces and proper refrigeration of leftovers. A review of the facility's Employee Sanitation Practices policy, undated, revealed, gloves are worn to protect food by creating a barrier between the hands and food. Gloves should be changed as soon as they become soiled or torn and before beginning a different task. An observation, during the initial tour of the kitchen, on 03/03/2020 at 9:15 AM, revealed the conventional oven was dirty with build-up of food on the inside walls of the oven. The aluminum foil, in the bottom of the oven, was dirty with food build up. The two (2) small ovens had food build up on the inside walls and on the aluminum foil in the bottom of the ovens. The door of the oven had food build up on it as well. During an interview, on 03/03/2020 at 9:35 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated that all the ovens were dirty. The DM stated she had a schedule for when the ovens are supposed to be cleaned, and they were apparently not cleaned according to the schedule. The DM stated the food build-up on the ovens looked to be from several days of cooking. A review of the Cleaning Schedule #1, dated February 2020-March 01, 2020, revealed the small ovens were initialed as being last cleaned on February 27, 2020. The large oven was initialed as being last cleaned on February 29, 2020. During an observation, on 03/04/2020 at 10:56 AM, Dietary Worker #2 knocked a piece of white sandwich bread, that was in a paper sleeve, off of a serving cart onto the floor. Dietary Worker #2 picked the sleeve with the piece of bread in it, up off the floor, and placed it back on top of the cart with the other pieces of sandwich bread in sleeves. The sleeve with the piece of bread that had fallen to the floor, was taken off of the cart; however, the other sleeves of bread were served to the residents. Dietary Worker #2 did not remove her gloves or wash her hands after picking the sleeve of bread off the floor and placing it back onto the cart. Dietary Worker #2 went back to the food serving line, wearing the same gloves that she used to pick the bread up off the floor. During an observation, on 03/04/2020 at 11:02 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) was assisting Dietary Worker #3 in calibrating the thermometer to check food temperatures. The DM, without wearing gloves, picked up the foam cup that was being used for calibration, went to the ice maker and dipped the foam cup into the ice machine to obtain more ice. During an interview on, 03/04/2020 at 11:04 AM, the DM stated that she used the foam cup to obtain ice from the ice machine, instead of using the scoop. The DM stated she shouldn't have done it, and that it was contamination. The DM revealed they did not discard the ice from the ice machine, nor did they clean the ice machine. During an interview, on 03/04/2020 at 11:06 AM, Dietary Worker #2 confirmed she picked up the paper sleeve containing the piece of sandwich bread, from the floor and placed it back on top of the cart with the other sleeves of bread. Dietary Worker #2 stated she was not supposed to do that. Dietary Worker #2 stated she should have thrown it away. Dietary Worker #2 revealed she threw the sleeve of bread away, but it was after she had sat it on the other sleeves of bread, on the cart. Dietary Worker #2 stated they still served the other sleeves of bread to the residents for lunch, and they should have thrown it away. On 03/04/2020 at 11:29 AM, during an interview, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated that she saw Dietary Worker #2 drop the sleeve, with the piece of bread in it, pick it up, and put it on top of the cart with the other sleeves containing the bread. The DM confirmed she saw Dietary Worker #2 throw away the sleeve of bread that had fallen on the floor, but it was after she had placed the contaminated bread back on the cart. The DM stated she told Dietary Worker #2 not to put it back on the cart, but she did it anyway. The DM stated what Dietary Worker #2 had done was contamination. She stated that Dietary Worker #2 should have discarded the whole cart of bread, after she laid the contaminated bread back onto the cart. During an interview, on 03/04/2020 at 1:25 PM, the DM stated that it was ultimately her responsibility to make sure the equipment was cleaned as scheduled. The DM stated that it was also her responsibility to make sure that the contaminated food was not served. On 03/06/2020 at 9:14 AM, during an interview, with the DM, revealed she saw Dietary Worker #2 go back to the serving line, without washing her hands and changing gloves, after picking the bread up off of the floor. During an interview, on 03/06/2020 at 11:47 AM, the Administrator stated that she considered it an infection control issue, with the staff not following the cleaning schedule for cleaning the oven and back splash on the oven. The Administrator stated the Dietary Manager getting the ice from the ice machine without gloves on, and without using the scoop, was an infection control issue. She stated that the Dietary Manager not washing her hands and changing gloves, after picking the bread up off the floor, and before returning to the serving line, was an infection control issue. The Administrator stated Dietary Worker #2 should not have placed the bread back on the cart. She stated the tray of bread, on the cart, should have been discarded since it was contaminated, and fresh bread should have been brought out to be served. The Administrator stated Dietary Worker #2 contaminated the other bread on the serving cart, when she placed the bread that was picked up off of the floor, back onto the serving cart. A review of the facility's training record, dated 02/26/2020, revealed the Dietary Manager and Dietary Worker #2 were in-serviced on Food Safety and Dietary Procedures.
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
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Mississippi.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
  • • Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Ms Of Raleigh's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Ms Of Raleigh Staffed?

CMS rates MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ms Of Raleigh?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH during 2020 to 2025. These included: 4 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Ms Of Raleigh?

MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH 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 MISSISSIPPI CARE CENTER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 110 certified beds and approximately 85 residents (about 77% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in RALEIGH, Mississippi.

How Does Ms Of Raleigh Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ms Of Raleigh?

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 Ms Of Raleigh Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH 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 5-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 Ms Of Raleigh Stick Around?

MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Ms Of Raleigh Ever Fined?

MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH 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 Ms Of Raleigh on Any Federal Watch List?

MS CARE CENTER OF RALEIGH 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.