Deficiency Index

Christian Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation Cente

Pembroke, Kentucky · CCN 185338

20 surveys since 2010, 29 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
73
Surveys
20
Harm or worse
29
Immediate jeopardy
23
The record, 2010–2026
’10’15’20’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Immediate jeopardy23

Findings at the most serious level CMS records.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file17/20

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
60
Ownership
For profit - Limited Liability company
Chain
BENJAMIN LANDA
County
Christian
Medicare-certified since
1992

CMS ratings

Overall
1
Health inspection
3
Staffing
1
Quality measures
1

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=4, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Mar 26, 2026

228 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day3.243.66
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.41—
Annual nurse turnover62.5%45.1%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ120.0%K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD240.0%E—F240.0%
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 5 of the 73 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Christian Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation Cente, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Feb 21, 2025

    Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food items were not sealed and/or covered to prevent contamination. Opened food items were not dated as required. Food maintained on ice during lunch meal service exceeded the required 41-degree Fahrenheit temperature limit for cold food items. The facility's failure had the potential to affect 56 of the facility's 57 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. Review of the undated facility policy, titled, Labeling and Dating, revealed proper labeling and dating ensured that all foods were stored rotated, and utilized in a first in-first out manner. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF921Feb 21, 2025

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 20 of 57 residents (Resident (R) 7, R10, R16, R19, R22, R25, R26, R33, R35, R38, R40, R42, R43, R46, R47, R48, R49, R50, R55, and R110.) Resident rooms had broken and/or missing floor tiles, peeling paint, and/or holes in walls. Four residents (R19, R46, F47, and R50) were noted to have an unsanitary commode in poor repair. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Rights Standard of Practice, originated 04/2024, revealed the facility follows the guidance of Regulatory Group 483.10, F550-F586, which includes the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF602Mar 26, 2026

    Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to protect residents from misappropriation of property (medication) for 1 of 9 sampled residents observed during medication administration, Resident (R)38. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice, revised 07/2022, revealed the definition of misappropriation of resident property was the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of the resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF761Mar 26, 2026

    Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store drugs under proper temperature controls, and failed to provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs. This affected Resident (R)29. The findings include: Observation of the facility's only medication storage room was conducted on 03/26/2026 at 4:20 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON). The Pixis system (Automated medication dispensing system using secure computerized cabinets to store and dispense medication) and three unlocked refrigerators were observed on the shelves of the medication storage room. Temperature logs for the refrigerators were checked with no concerns noted. However, there was no controlled substance affixed lock box present inside the refrigerators. […]

Read 48 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 48 of 73 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Mar 26, 2026Standard2 findings
  • Feb 21, 2025Standard and complaint2 findings
  • Jan 9, 2020Standard1 finding · 1 harm
  • Nov 1, 2018Standard1 finding
  • Sep 28, 2017Complaint2 findings
  • Sep 7, 2017Standard3 findings
  • Mar 23, 2017Complaint2 findings
  • Feb 7, 2017Complaint2 findings
Show the 12 earlier surveys
  • Sep 1, 2016Standard5 findings
  • Aug 26, 2015Standard2 findings
  • Feb 25, 2015Complaint3 findings
  • Jun 13, 2014Standard and complaint16 findings · 13 harm
  • Dec 13, 2013—4 findings · 3 harm
  • Jul 19, 2013—5 findings
  • Apr 25, 2013—3 findings · 3 harm
  • Jul 16, 2012—2 findings · 2 harm
  • Jun 20, 2012—1 finding
  • Feb 24, 2012—4 findings
  • Jul 29, 2011—7 findings · 7 harm
  • Nov 19, 2010—6 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction