River Chase Village
Gautier, Mississippi · CCN 255289
14 surveys since 2011, 4 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
- 62
- Surveys
- 14
- Harm or worse
- 4
- Immediate jeopardy
- 2
Findings at the most serious level CMS records.
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 - Partnership
- Chain
- Independent
- County
- Jackson
- Medicare-certified since
- 2002
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 4
- Health inspection
- 5
- Staffing
- 1
- Quality measures
- 3
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=12, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Feb 6, 2025
641 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 3.26 | 4.11 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.21 | — |
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
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D880.0% | E110.0% | F110.0% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at River Chase Village, in the surveyor’s own words.
- Immediate jeopardy, isolatedF835Feb 1, 2023
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility administration failed to ensure residents in the facility were able to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being by failing to ensure staff who tested positive for COVID-19 were not allowed to work with residents who did not have COVID-19 infection. The facility's administration allowed Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #1, who tested positive for COVID-19 and had not met the return to work criteria, to provide direct patient care to residents without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. […]
- Immediate jeopardy, isolatedF880Feb 1, 2023
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were implemented to prevent the development and/or transmission of a communicable disease (COVID-19) among residents and staff for three (3) of 11 sampled residents. Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3. The facility allowed Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #1, with a known positive COVID-19 test, who had not met the return to work criteria, to provide direct patient care to residents without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF851Feb 6, 2025
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the direct care hours based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024 ([DATE] - [DATE]) for one (1) of (1) quarters reviewed. Findings included: A record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead provided and signed by the Administrator, dated February 6, 2025, revealed (Proper name of facility) does not have the following policies: Staffing . A record review of the facility's Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024 ([DATE]-[DATE]) revealed, . […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF925Jun 22, 2023
Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was maintained as evidenced by multiple flies observed throughout the facility for three (3) of four (4) days of survey. Findings include: Record review of a document on facility letterhead dated 6/21/23 and signed by the Administrator revealed the facility does not have a pest control policy on flies. On 06/19/23 at 11:51 AM, an observation and interview with Resident #8 sitting at a table in the dining room with two (2) other residents revealed 4 flies flying around the table and landing on the resident's food. Resident #8 revealed she had not eaten her soup because she is letting the flies have it. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF657Feb 6, 2025
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan for Diabetes Mellitus to include interventions related to a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device for one (1) of (20) care plans reviewed. Resident #49. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, revised on 02/05/2025, revealed, . An individual comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs is developed for each resident . Policy Interpretation .5. […]
Read 22 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 22 of 62 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Feb 6, 2025Standard4 findings
- Jun 22, 2023Standard6 findings
- Feb 1, 2023Complaint2 findings · 2 harm
- Mar 12, 2020Standard4 findings
- Aug 20, 2019Complaint3 findings
- Feb 28, 2019Standard6 findings
- Jan 26, 2018Standard7 findings
- Oct 20, 2016Standard9 findings
Show the 6 earlier surveys
- Dec 22, 2015Standard3 findings
- Nov 29, 2014Standard9 findings · 2 harm
- Apr 17, 2014Complaint1 finding
- Oct 31, 2013—2 findings
- Dec 7, 2012—4 findings
- Sep 23, 2011—2 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