How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Jasper County NH
15 A South Sixth Street, Bay Springs, MS 39422 (opens Google Maps) · Jasper County · (601) 764-2101· 110 certified beds · avg 101 residents/day · certified since Nov 30, 1976 · Medicaid only — not Medicare certified
Certified for Medicaid only. It cannot bill Medicare, so a short post-hospital rehabilitation stay would not be covered the usual way here. Who pays for nursing home care →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Oct 9, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 9, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.54
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2025 · F-0605
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2025 · F-0605
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Why it matters: Using sedating drugs as a 'chemical restraint' can rob residents of alertness and mobility and increases risks of falls and death, especially in people with dementia.
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: Nov 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.
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: Dec 18, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.
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: Dec 18, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
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
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. F-0550
View all 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | 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. · F-0550 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0656 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Oct 9, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Jan 2, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Jan 2, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0550 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Mar 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Mar 23, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Mar 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Mar 23, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 3
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 11 | 3 | G ▲ |
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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMississippi averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.54
Mississippi average: 4.88
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.71
Mississippi average: 0.74
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.67
Mississippi average: 4.09
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Mississippi avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.54 | 4.88 | 3.95 | top 21% in Mississippi; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.69 | top 42% in Mississippi; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.67 | 4.09 | 3.50 | top 17% in Mississippi; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.48 | bottom 31% in Mississippi; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.7 | 45.7 | 45.8 | top 44% in Mississippi; top 44% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 25.0 | 38.4 | 42.9 | top 28% in Mississippi; top 20% 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 4.57, RN 0.59, weekend 3.85.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.57 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.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Jasper County NH. 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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
Government - County
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "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?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "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 43% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Care Center of Laurel | 18.8 mi | Laurel, MS | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Laurelwood Community Living Center | 19.0 mi | Laurel, MS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Comfort Care Nursing Center | 19.0 mi | Laurel, MS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Ms Care Center of Raleigh | 19.3 mi | Raleigh, MS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 25A178.