Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 5, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 15, 2025
$12,740
Fines, last 3 years
2.62
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 · Aug 15, 2025 · F-0655 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Why it matters: In the critical first days, staff may not know a new resident's medications, diet, or fall risks.
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: Aug 4, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Aug 15, 2025 · 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: Aug 4, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaintF-0655
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
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaintF-0804
View all 16 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 15, 2025
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655
Aug 15, 2025
▲ 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
Jul 19, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804
Jul 19, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Jul 19, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925
Jul 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582
Jul 19, 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
Jul 19, 2024
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
Jul 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Jul 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jul 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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
Jul 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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
May 16, 2019
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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
May 16, 2019
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
May 16, 2019
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
May 16, 2019
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations:
4
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
10
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
2
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2019
4
0
F
2024
10
0
F
2025
2
2
J ▲
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
Aug 15, 2025
Fine
$6,370
Aug 15, 2025
Fine
$6,370
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:
2.62
Kentucky average:
3.71
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.48
Kentucky average:
0.74
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.34
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)
2.62
3.71
3.95
bottom 4% in Kentucky; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.48
0.74
0.69
bottom 28% in Kentucky; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.34
3.27
3.50
bottom 5% in Kentucky; bottom 6% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.54
0.53
0.48
top 34% in Kentucky; top 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
43.6
46.4
45.8
top 46% in Kentucky; top 46% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
30.8
41.8
42.9
top 30% in Kentucky; top 30% 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 3.84, RN 0.71, weekend 3.43.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.84 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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 Louisville East Post Acute. 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.
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pacs Group — 274 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
CMS records place this facility in Jefferson, KY — 39 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.