512 Rockwell Drive, Okolona, MS 38860 (opens Google Maps) · Chickasaw County · (662) 447-5463· 73 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Feb 2, 1975 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 21, 2024 · F-0603 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment.
Why it matters: Forced isolation is emotionally harmful and can hide neglect or abuse from view.
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 6, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 10, 2023 · F-0656
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: Sep 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 10, 2023 · F-0689
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: Sep 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 18 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
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
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. F-0726
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 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Oct 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| Oct 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · from a complaint · F-0603 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Oct 3, 2024 | 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 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Oct 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 3, 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 |
| Aug 10, 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | ▲ 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. · F-0689 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Aug 10, 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 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 5).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 5 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $12,149.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2024 | Fine | $12,149 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 5.59 | 4.88 | 3.95 | top 19% in Mississippi; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.40 | 0.74 | 0.69 | top 5% in Mississippi; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.70 | 4.09 | 3.50 | top 16% in Mississippi; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.73 | 0.38 | 0.48 | top 6% in Mississippi; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 56.6 | 45.7 | 45.8 | bottom 19% in Mississippi; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 54.2 | 38.4 | 42.9 | bottom 24% in Mississippi; bottom 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 4.30, RN 1.07, weekend 3.61.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.30 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Shearer-Richardson Memorial Nursing Home. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - City/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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trend Health and Rehab of Houston | 15.0 mi | Houston, MS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| River Place Nursing Center | 16.0 mi | Amory, MS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Diversicare of Amory | 16.1 mi | Amory, MS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Diversicare of Tupelo | 16.9 mi | Tupelo, MS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Tupelo Community Care Center | 17.2 mi | Tupelo, MS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cedars Health Center | 17.3 mi | Tupelo, MS | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Care Center of Aberdeen | 17.7 mi | Aberdeen, MS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 25A162.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details