Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 22, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 15, 2023
$9,318
Fines, last 3 years
6.36
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 15, 2023 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 15, 2023 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 8 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. F-0565
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812
J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaintF-0689
View all 8 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Aug 22, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Aug 22, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 15, 2023
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Dec 15, 2023
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656
Dec 15, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Dec 15, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Dec 15, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Oct 1, 2021
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 2).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2023
All citations:
5
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2025
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2021
1
0
E
2023
5
2
J ▲
2025
2
0
E
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Dec 15, 2023
Fine
$9,318
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityKentucky averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
6.36
Kentucky average:
3.71
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.61
Kentucky average:
0.74
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
5.88
Kentucky average:
3.27
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Kentucky avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
6.36
3.71
3.95
top 6% in Kentucky; top 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.61
0.74
0.69
bottom 45% in Kentucky; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
5.88
3.27
3.50
top 4% in Kentucky; top 2% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.40
0.53
0.48
bottom 40% in Kentucky; top 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
52.5
46.4
45.8
bottom 26% in Kentucky; bottom 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
37.5
41.8
42.9
top 46% in Kentucky; top 42% in the U.S.
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 6.34, RN 0.61, weekend 5.86.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.34 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Emerald Trace. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 185481.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Emerald Trace
3802 Turkeyfoot Road, Elsmere, KY 41018 · (859) 342-0200
Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 2/5· Fines (3y): $9,318
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Dec 15, 2023 (F-0689, Immediate jeopardy, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Dec 15, 2023 (F-0656, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
☐ "CMS reports 53% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 19 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 185481 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)