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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 14, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent May 3, 2024
$8,512
Fines, last 3 years
4.17
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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 3, 2024 · 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 (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: Jun 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 3, 2024 · 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 (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: Jun 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. F-0578
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
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. · from a complaintF-0880
View all 15 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 14, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Aug 14, 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
Aug 14, 2025
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. · from a complaint · F-0880
May 3, 2024
▲ G · Actual harm, 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
May 3, 2024
▲ G · Actual harm, 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
Apr 11, 2024
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. · from a complaint · F-0812
Apr 11, 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. · from a complaint · F-0582
May 12, 2022
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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 12, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
May 12, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
May 12, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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. · F-0686
May 12, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
May 12, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580
May 12, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0658
May 12, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
4
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2025
All citations:
3
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
2022
8
0
F
2024
4
2
G ▲
2025
3
0
D
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
Apr 11, 2024
Fine
$4,225
Apr 11, 2024
Fine
$4,287
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 facilityGeorgia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
4.17
Georgia average:
3.54
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.78
Georgia average:
0.50
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.46
Georgia average:
3.09
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Georgia avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
4.17
3.54
3.95
top 13% in Georgia; top 33% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.78
0.50
0.69
top 11% in Georgia; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.46
3.09
3.50
top 18% in Georgia; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.33
0.35
0.48
top 41% in Georgia; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
45.3
46.0
45.8
top 48% in Georgia; bottom 49% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
37.5
44.5
42.9
top 37% in Georgia; 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 3.48, RN 0.65, weekend 2.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.48 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 Regency Park Health and Rehabilitation. 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 115663.
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 — Regency Park Health and Rehabilitation
1212 Broadrick Drive, Dalton, GA 30720 · (706) 270-8008
Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $8,512
Most serious findings on record:
▲ May 3, 2024 (F-0655, Actual harm, 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.
▲ May 3, 2024 (F-0689, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "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 45% 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?"
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 115663 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)