The Sharon at Southpark
5100 Sharon Road, Charlotte, NC 28210 · Non profit - Corporation · 19 certified beds · (704) 553-1670 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.3% | 22.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
53.9% 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 238 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.1% 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 117 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.
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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 53.9%CMS range 47.8–59.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.2%CMS range 6.4–12.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 52.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 55.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 21.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.2%CMS range 3.1–8.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.72 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 19 beds and averages 6.9 residents a day — about 36% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 12.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 5.47 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.32 is at or above 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.
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 record review, and Resident Representative (RR) and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the RR of the facility's bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #13). The findings included: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility 7/29/24. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment. A review of the nurse's notes revealed Resident #13 was discharged to the hospital 8/19/24 and did not return to the facility. A review of Resident #13's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed there was no documentation that information regarding the bed hold policy was issued when he was transferred to the hospital or that the RR was contacted concerning the bed hold. A telephone interview conducted with the RR on 11/06/24 at 2:06 PM indicated she was notified by the facility on 8/19/24 that Resident #13 was transferred to the hospital but there was no…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 record review and Resident Representative (RR), Hospital Case Manager and staff interviews, the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility after being discharged to the hospital for evaluation due to a change of condition for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #13). The findings included: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility 7/29/24. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment. A review of the nurse's note dated 8/19/24 at 8:05 AM indicated Resident #13 had an unwitnessed fall at 1:40 AM and was being monitored. Resident #13's vital signs were obtained around 5:00 AM and his temperature and heart rate had dropped. The on-call physician and RR were notified, and Resident #13 was transferred to the hospital for further evaluation. The discharge MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had an unplanned discharge from the facility to the hospital and return to the facility was not anticipated. A review 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop personalized comprehensive care plans in the areas of diuretic (reduce fluid build up in the body) therapy and anticoagulation (blood thinning) therapy for 1 of 5 residents whose comprehensive care plans were reviewed (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (A-fib), edema, urinary retention, and congestive heart failure (CHF). A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed a physician order dated 10/1/2024 for Rivaroxaban (an anticoagulant medication) 15 milligram (mg), 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for A-fib (a heart condition that can lead to poor blood flow) and another order dated 10/24/2024 for Furosemide (a diuretic medication) 20 mg, 1 tablet by mouth in the morning every other day for CHF. A review of Resident #1's October and November 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she had been receiving the anticoagulant and…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 record review, and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to ensure the correct medications were administered to the correct resident (Resident #1) on two separate occasions for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Atrial fibrillation (A-fib), cardiac murmur, hyperlipidemia, congestive heart failure (CHF), Hypertension (HTN), edema, and chronic kidney disease. A review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 had some mild cognitive impairment with no mood or behavior issues. The MDS also revealed that Resident #1 required partial assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of Resident #1's current physician orders dated October 2024 revealed Resident #1 was ordered the following medications Flomax 0.4 milligrams (mg) times 2 capsules by mouth, Furosemide (to…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, and staff, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to provide effective orientation and education to 2 of 2 agency nurses (Nurse #1 and Nurse #2) to ensure competency when administering medications to 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) resulting in Resident #1 receiving the wrong medication on 2 separate occasions. This deficient practice affected 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a medication error. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to F658 Based on record review, resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to ensure the correct medications were administered to the correct resident (Resident #1) on two separate occasions for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. F760 Based on record review, observation, and staff, resident, and facility Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when Resident #1 received Metoprolol and Apixaban. The Apixaban was not prescribed to Resident…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 record review, observation, and staff, resident, and facility Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when Resident #1 received Metoprolol and Apixaban. The Apixaban was not prescribed to Resident #1, however she had an order for Metoprolol prescribed at a different dose. Nurse #1 administered medications prescribed to an Assisted Living Resident to Resident #1 on 10/23/2024 which included a different dose of Metoprolol, 100 milligrams (mg) used to treat hypertension (HTN), Angina (Chest pain) and Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). (This medication acts by decreasing blood pressure and heart rate which can cause tiredness and shortness of breath). On 10/24/2024 Resident #1 was given medication prescribed to an Assisted Living Resident by Nurse #2 that included Apixaban 2.5 mg (blood thinner). This deficient practice affected 1 of 1 resident reviewed for significant medication error (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard spoiled food stored in the lower-level refrigerator, failed to discard expired food items stored for use in the lower-level dry goods storage room and in the rehabilitation hall nourishment refrigerator. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: 1. An observation on 9/25/23 at 11:20 AM with the Culinary Director revealed the following: -The refrigerator located in the lower-level kitchen storage revealed had 4 green peppers covered in white/ grayish fuzzy substance and wilted brownish iceberg lettuce. -The dry storage room in the lower level kitchen revealed a) 20 8 ounce (oz) jars of sushi pickled ginger with a best buy date of 11/7/2021; b) 26 4oz cans of curry paste with a best buy date of 6/2022; c) 20 4oz cans of curry paste with a best buy date of 2/2022; d) baking flour use by date of 4/9/23; e) caramel paste best buy date of 7/4/2022; f) candy sprinkles use by date of 3/21/23; g) hazel nut paste best buy date of 7/20/22; h) chocolate…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-28 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove loose garbage, food, and debris from around 1 of 1 trash receptacle located outdoors behind the kitchen. This practice had the potential to impact sanitary conditions and attract pests/rodents. The findings included: An observation (with the Director of Environmental Services) of the outdoor trash receptacle area on 9/26/23 at 3:15 PM revealed trash and food littered around the trash receptacle. During the observation, flies were swarming around the trash receptacle. The Director of Environmental Services indicated he was filling in for the Maintenance Director who was out of the office and that the Maintenance Department was responsible for maintaining the trash receptacle and the trash removal company removed the receptacle once weekly, dumped the receptacle off-site then returned it to the facility within 2 hours. During the 2-hour period, maintenance usually removed littered trash and cleaned the area before the trash receptacle was returned. Maintenance may or may not know what time the receptacle was…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on dining observations, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide or assist 4 of 4 residents with hand hygiene before meals during 2 of 2 dining observations (Resident #157, #207, #208, and #209). The findings included: The facility policy, entitled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, recorded in part, this facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Residents will be encouraged to practice hand hygiene. Use an alcohol-based hand rub or alternatively, soap and water for the following situations: before and after eating or handling food. 1a. A continuous observation of the lunch meal on the rehab unit occurred on 9/25/23 from 12:47 PM until 12:55 PM. Residents #207, #208 and #209 were assisted in their rooms by Nurse Aide (NA) #4 with meal set up for the lunch meal. Meal trays were removed from the meal cart, taken into each resident's room, placed on the overbed table, and set up for each resident, per their preference. Residents #207, #208 and #209 were not asked if hand hygiene had already been…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to secure a controlled substance in a permanently affixed compartment of the refrigerator in 1 of 1 facility medication room (Medicare Hall medication room). The findings included: On 9/26/23 at 3:13 PM an observation and interview were conducted with Nurse #2. The refrigerator in the Medicare Hall medication room was not locked and had a clear permanently affixed lock box that was locked and contained a 30 ml (milliliter) multi-dose bottle of Lorazepam/Intensol (a controlled substance) oral concentrate 2 mg (milligrams/ml). In another clear lock box that was locked, but not permanently affixed in the refrigerator, contained a 30 ml multi-dose bottle of Lorazepam/Intensol (a controlled substance) oral concentrate 2mg/ml and four 2 mg/ml vials of lorazepam for injection. Nurse #2 stated the unaffixed lock box was used for pyxis (automated medication dispensing system) removal. If a resident needed a stat dose of lorazepam, they would go to the pyxis and remove the key to open that lock box. She indicated she did not…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BUTLER, KEITH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| DOOLEY, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| GERDES, EVELYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| HARRIS, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| KILLIAN, RAY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| MCQUISTON, ANNE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| MILLER, EDITH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 01/01/2021 |
| NICHOLS, WILLIAM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| PARNELL, BRENDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| RICHARDSON, BERTHA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| STERRETT, TATE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| WILLIAMS, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 01/01/2021 |
| WILSON, WORTH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| WINDHAM, JONATHAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| GASKINS, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/11/2017 |
| MCGOWIAN, MILTON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2019 |
| RIGSBEE, ANGELA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2014 |
| ALEGRIA, CARMINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/05/2025 |
| ARNAUD, ADELINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2015 |
| BOURQUE, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2015 |
| GOODENOW, CYNTHIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/20/2024 |
| GRIMES, CARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2024 |
| HELCOSKI, KATRINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/03/2024 |
| HEYWORTH, APRIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/05/2021 |
| JACKSON, JANTORIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| JACKSON, KRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/14/2024 |
| LADIS, ANN MARIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2020 |
| LAUDERBAUGH, CHAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/29/2022 |
| MILLS, JAMEIYA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2023 |
| NELSON, NIKKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/23/2014 |
| RICKARD, CARLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/21/2020 |
| RITZEL, MARYANN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2011 |
| STEPANSKI, CORY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/19/2019 |
| TYLER, JOY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/24/2025 |
| TUTU, PRISCILLA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 59 rows in the source record cover these 35 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 NC
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345564. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-25, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.