Rehabilitation Center of Hampton

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

39.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 84.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 39 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 52 beds and averages 45.9 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-01-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent accidents and injuries for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for falls with injuries (Resident #1). Resident #1 experienced a fall from a full-body mechanical lift that resulted in a left arm injury. The facility failed to inspect a sling prior to transferring a resident with a mechanical lift which resulted in one strap breaking causing the resident to fall approximately 41 inches to the ground. While in the hospital, three months after the fall, an X-Ray revealed a fracture to her left proximal humerus (break in the upper part of the left bone of the arm near the shoulder). Findings include: Resident #1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented diagnoses of anemia (low iron in the blood), anxiety, depression, heart failure, hypertension(high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus, post traumatic stress disorder, and below the knee amputation to the…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-28 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, staff and family interviews, the facility failed to have a clear and accurate code status across all documentation records for 1 of 16 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives (Resident #34). The facility reported a census of 39 residents.Findings include:Resident #34's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severely impaired cognition. The Care Plan Focus initiated [DATE] listed Resident #34's Advanced Directives Status - Pursuant to resident rights, personal choices, and their desire to retain control over their health decisions, Resident #34's Representative chose Full Code. The Intervention dated [DATE] directed staff to go to the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) chart to identify Code Status. The Staff updated the Care Plan on [DATE] to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). The Clinical Physician Orders printed [DATE] included an order dated [DATE] for DNR. The admission Record dated…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-11-19 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — pattern
  Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pest for 6 of 6 residents reviewed. (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #60. The facility identified a census of 44 residents.Finding include:1 The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #1 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 indicating no cognitive impairment for decision making abilities and is able to make self-understood and understands others.Review of Resident #1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented resident resided in room [ROOM NUMBER].On 11/19/25 at 1:20 PM, Resident #1 stated that he was in room [ROOM NUMBER] and it was awful with flies, and then he was moved to room [ROOM NUMBER] and does not see the number of flies that were in room [ROOM NUMBER].2 The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #2 documented a BIMS score 12 indicating no cognitive impairment for decision making abilities and is…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to appropriately implement interventions to protect 1 out of 1 resident (Resident #3) reviewed from financial exploitation. The facility reported a census of 45 residents.The facility corrected the noncompliance prior to the start of the survey by conducting staff in-services on 6/12/25, 6/16/25, and 6/17/25 regarding accepting gifts or payments from the residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #1 showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented diagnoses of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. Review of the facility self-report revealed the facility was made aware of the incident on 6/12/25 by Resident #1's family members. The family member sent a video of a woman entering Resident #1's residence to the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was able to identify…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices during urinary catheter care and wound care for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #14 and #32). The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #14's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) didn't get completed as Resident #14 is rarely/never understood. The MDS listed Resident #14 had an indwelling urinary catheter. The MDS included diagnoses of medically complex conditions, neurogenic bladder (impaired bladder control), and diabetes mellitus. The Care Plan with a target date of 7/22/25 included the following Focuses: a. Resident #14 had an indwelling catheter due to a neurogenic bladder from a previous stroke. The Intervention directed: i. The Care Plan instructed staff to provide catheter care. b. Resident #14 required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) related to the use of an…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents were transported within the facility in a safe manner. Residents #10 and #8 were pushed in the dining room and hallway in their wheelchairs without foot pedals in place for safety. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition. Resident #10 required partial to moderate assistance with bed to chair transfers. The MDS indicated Resident #10 used a walker or wheelchair for mobility. The Care Plan Focus with a target date of 9/2/24 reflected Resident #10 had a risk for falls related to confusion, aggressive behaviors towards staff, and dementia. The Interventions instructed the staff to ensure he wore appropriate food when transferring or mobilizing in his wheelchair. On 7/5/24 at 5:27 PM observed…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, hospital record review, staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to appropriately provide assessment and interventions for the necessary care and services, to maintain the residents' highest practical physical well- being. Clinical record review and staff interviews revealed a Physician order was obtained and transcribed incorrectly which resulted in an x-ray being completed on the wrong arm after a fall from a hoyer (mechanical) lift for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls. Three months later it was determined the resident had a left proximal humerus fracture. The facility reported a census of 41 residents. Findings include: Resident #1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 09, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #1 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility and toilet use. The MDS identified Resident #1 required total…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LEGACY HEALTHCARE — 89 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 66 rows in the source record cover these 37 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

13 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $738K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in IA