TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Tupelo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor overall quality of care. It ranks #195 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #4 out of 4 in Lee County, meaning there are no better options nearby. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced issues from 16 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5, but with a concerning turnover rate of 60%, which is higher than the state average, suggesting instability among caregivers. However, the center has faced serious issues, including a critical incident where a resident with dementia was able to leave the facility unsupervised, walking 4.2 miles before being found, and another incident where a resident was verbally abused by staff for requesting pain medication. While the nursing home has some strengths, the presence of fines totaling $62,606-higher than 90% of facilities in Mississippi-highlights ongoing compliance problems that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Mississippi
- #195/200
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $62,606 in fines. Lower than most Mississippi facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Mississippi. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Mississippi average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
13pts above Mississippi avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Mississippi average of 48%
The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, resident and staff interviews, facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
16 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
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 ensure a resident received coffee, as desired, for one (1) of 24 residents sampled. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping services necessary to maintain a clean home-like environment for one (1) of 55 rooms observed fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to notify the resident/resident's representative(s) of a notice of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident/r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately complete section N of the five (5) day Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 24 samp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair was in good, safe condition for one (1) of 21 sampled residents' wheelchairs. Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a developed care plan was implemented for shaving (Resident #43), bathing (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) for residents that were d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident/family/staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided the necessary resident care for six (6) of seven (7) residents reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary drug use as evidenced by no side effect monitoring for the use o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility review the facility failed to help prevent the transmission of infections when a resident returned from the hospital wit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey days.
Fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to be administered in a way that allows it to use its resources effectively to ensure the wellbeing of its ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facilities Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI)/ Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview and facility letterhead review, the facility failed to ensure the handrails on the resident's halls were permanently affixed to the wall for four (4) of 4 hallway...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that new hire staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the baseline plan of car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99
Record review of Resident #99's care plans revealed a care plan for Diabetes, with an approach of Nails as needed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99
An observation on 05/16/23 at 10:45 AM, of Resident #99 revealed long thick fingernails extending one-forth (1/4) i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to renew a prescription for pain medication for a resident with constant pain for one (1) of two (2) residents revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an anti-anxiety, as needed (PRN), medication had a stop date for one (1) of four (4) residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to store respiratory equipment in a manner to prev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that a lock box was permanently ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on resident, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide mail services to the residents on Saturday for five (5) of five (5) residents interviewed during the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR) Le...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a smoking car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide na...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain handrails that were secured and affixed to the walls for one (1) of four (4) hallways. Hallway D
Findings Include:
An observa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff and resident interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment as evidenced by dirty floors, gouged walls, and nonfunctional win...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent the l...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $62,606 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 35 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $62,606 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Mississippi. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Tupelo's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Mississippi, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Tupelo Staffed?
CMS rates TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Tupelo?
State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 31 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Tupelo?
TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TUPELO, Mississippi.
How Does Tupelo Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Tupelo?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Tupelo Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Tupelo Stick Around?
Staff turnover at TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Tupelo Ever Fined?
TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $62,606 across 5 penalty actions. This is above the Mississippi average of $33,705. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Tupelo on Any Federal Watch List?
TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.