The Stewart Health Center
6920 Marching Duck Drive, Charlotte, NC 28210 · Non profit - Corporation · 65 certified beds · (704) 714-5555 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $57,971 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-23)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 34.6% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.8% | 18.3% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.4% | 21.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.9% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.5% | 14.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 40.7% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.74 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
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.
57.6% 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 48 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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.
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 | 57.6%CMS range 48.3–68.5 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 5.7–14.9 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 3.8–14.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 65 beds and averages 56.8 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 8 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 5.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.61 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.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.66 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observations, pictures captured of video footage, record review, and staff, family member, resident, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to ensure the necessary supervision was provided to prevent a cognitively impaired resident who was care planned as having a history of attempting to leave the facility, had impaired safety awareness, and hearing loss and aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate) from exiting the building without staff knowledge. On Saturday 09/06/25, Resident #1 entered a conference room area where the inside entrance doors had been propped open by the Dietary Manger. The Dietary Manger then went to the kitchen and the left the conference room area unattended. Resident #1 entered the conference room area and exited the facility through a wanderguard alarmed door at 1:45 PM. The wanderguard alarm system did not alarm or sound, which allowed Resident #1 to exit the facility without staff knowledge. Resident #1 walked down the main road…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-03-07 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 observations, record review, family and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain privacy during care and failed to obtain written consent for the use of cameras in residents' rooms for 2 of 2 samples residents reviewed for privacy (Resident #13 and #38). A reasonable person would expect privacy when care was being provided and not have a monitor screen showing them with private areas exposed and would feel humiliated and dehumanized. Findings included: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired and had not exhibited any behaviors. A review of Resident #13's medical record revealed that no written consent for camera usage was obtained. An observation was conducted on 3/4/2024 at 12:34 pm. Resident #13 did not have a roommate and a camera was visualized on top of the cabinet in Resident #13's room. A monitor for the associated camera in Resident #13's room was left unattended on the edge 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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 record review, and Responsible Party, Pharmacist, Hospice Nurse and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer a probiotic ordered for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #7). The findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of physician order dated 1/14/2025 revealed, Saccharomycesboulardii 250 Milligram (MG) Oral Capsule (a probiotic). Give one capsule by mouth one time a day until 01/21/2025. Review of physician order dated 1/15/25 revealed, Doxycycline Hyclate Oral Tablet 100 MG (an antibiotic). Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for upper respiratory infection. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was moderately cognively impaired, her diagnoses were Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety and depression, lobar pneumonia. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) dated January 2025 revealed Nurse #1 had initialed the (MAR) on 1/15/25 for 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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-03-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 record review, Physician, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement an infection prevention and control program plan, failed to implement an infection surveillance plan for monitoring and tracking infections in the facility, and failed to review infection control policies annually. This practice had the potential to affect 60 of 60 residents in the facility. Findings included: The Infection Prevention and Control program policy (Revised October 2018) documented The infection prevention and control program was coordinated and overseen by the infection prevention specialist (infection preventionist), indicated Infection Control Policies should be reviewed at least annually, and Process surveillance and outcome surveillance are used as measures of the infection prevention control program (IPCP) effectiveness. The facility's infection control policy and procedure manual was provided by the administrator on entrance to the facility. The first page of the manual indicated The [NAME] Health Center…
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 · F2024-03-07 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to develop an infection prevention and control program that established an antibiotic stewardship program with written protocols on antibiotic prescribing, documentation of the indication, dosage, and duration of use of antibiotics. This was evident in 4 of 4 monthly surveillance data reviewed (December 2023, January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024.) Findings included: On 3/7/24 the Infection Preventionist (IP) provided the policy sent to her by the Regional Clinical Director. The Policy provided titled Antibiotic Stewardship-Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes was revised December 2016. The policy documented the antibiotic stewardship program will monitor and review all clinical infections treated with antibiotics, antibiotic utilization, identify specific situations not consistent with appropriate antibiotic use, and document all resident antibiotic regimens on the facility- approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The policy indicated the facility- approved antibiotic surveillance…
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 · E2024-03-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 observations, record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan for residents on anticoagulants (Resident # 209 and Resident #20), residents on psychotropic medications (Resident #210, #20, and #259), and a resident with a wander/elopement alarm (Resident #13) for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for development and implementation of a comprehensive care plan. Findings included: 1) Resident #209 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm). Resident 209's care plan dated 2/15/2024 did not include goals and interventions for the use of anticoagulants. A record review revealed Resident #209 had active orders dated 2/15/2024 for apixaban (blood thinner) 5 milligrams to be administered twice a day and was to be monitored for signs and symptoms of bleeding. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #209 was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of…
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 · E2024-03-07 · 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 maintain a clean ice cream freezer, label and date perishable food items stored in the walk-in cooler, and label and date perishable items in the reach-in refrigerator and ensure frozen items were sealed in the walk-in freezer. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: 1. The initial observation of the ice cream cooler conducted on 3/4/2024 at 9:48 am revealed pink and brown-colored substances on all four walls of the cooler. An interview was conducted with the DM on 3/7/2024 at 8:51 am. She reported the ice cream cooler was cleaned and sanitized daily. The DM stated the ice cream cooler was cleaned on 3/3/2024 and must have gotten dirty after she left. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 3/7/2024 at 2:12 pm. The Administrator reported the ice cream cooler should be clean and sanitary. She was not aware of the pink and brown-colored substance on the walls of the ice cream cooler. 2. The initial observation of the kitchen was conducted with…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that the resident's Medical Order for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form was signed by the resident or resident representative for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives (Resident #38). The findings included: Resident # 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #38's paper medical record located at the nursing station revealed a MOST form dated 6/8/2023. The MOST form indicated Resident #38 was a DNR and was signed by the Nurse Practitioner (NP). The MOST form did not have the required resident or resident representative signature on the front page of the document. A review of the active physician's order dated 11/30/2023 revealed Resident #38 was a DNR. Resident #38's care plan dated 1/11/2024 revealed goals and interventions for DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) to be implemented. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was severely cognitively impaired. An interview was conducted on…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the medical record revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter (NOMNC) was issued on 01/16/2024 to Resident #29's Responsible Party (RP) which explained Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services would end on 01/18/2024. Resident #29 was residing in the facility during the recertification survey conducted from 03/04/2024 through 03/07/2024. A review of the medical record revealed a CMS-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) was not provided to Resident #29 or their RP. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker and the Administrator on 03/06/24 at 10:05 AM.…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for functional limitations in range of motion, and anticoagulant medication for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments (Residents #38 and #209). Findings included: 1. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included muscle weakness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 had severe cognitive impairment, no impairment of the lower extremities, and required partial to moderate assistance from sitting to standing. An observation was conducted on 3/5/2024 at 2:43 pm. Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and NA #2 were observed using a sit-to-stand mechanical lift to transfer Resident #38 from the wheelchair to the toilet and back to his wheelchair during incontinence care. An interview was conducted on 3/5/2024 at 2:47 pm with NA #1. NA #1 reported that Resident #38 required the use of a mechanical lift during transfers due to his…
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 · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to secure a mechanical lift and wheelchair during a transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Accidents (Resident #38). Findings included: Resident # 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and essential tremors. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 required partial to minimal assistance for sit-to-stand and toileting transfer, had no impairment of upper and lower extremities, did not require the use of a mechanical lift, and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #38's care plan dated 1/11/2024 did not include goals or interventions for using a mechanical lift. An observation was conducted on 3/5/2024 at 2:43 pm of Resident #38 as he received incontinence care. Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and NA #2 were observed as they transferred Resident #38 from his wheelchair to the toilet using a mechanical lift. As Resident #38 was moved from a sitting…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 provide a stop date for an psychotropic medication that was prescribed as needed for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #210 and #259). Findings included: 1) Resident #210 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of delirium. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #210 was prescribed antipsychotic medications, was cognitively intact, and had not exhibited any behaviors. Resident #210 was prescribed Seroquel (antipsychotic medication) 12.5 milligrams every 12 hours as needed for behaviors on 2/15/2024 with no end date. A review of the Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 2/21/2024 was conducted. The Pharmacist had recommended discontinuing the as needed order for Seroquel by 2/29/2024. A review of Resident #210's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed Seroquel 12.5 milligrams every 12 hours as needed for behaviors was active from 2/15/2024 through…
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 · D2024-03-07 · 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 resident medications left in an unattended medication cart for 1 of 2 medication carts (Dogwood Avenue medication cart). The findings included: A continuous observation of Dogwood Avenue was conducted on 03/04/24 from 11:51 am to 11:57 am. The Dogwood Avenue medication cart was observed with the lock not engaged as evidenced by the red dot on the lock being visible. There was no staff member at the medication cart. Several staff members, residents, and visitors were observed walking past the medication cart. On 03/04/24 at 11:57 am, Nurse #2 was observed approaching the Dogwood Avenue medication cart. An observation and interview were completed with Nurse #2 upon her return to the Dogwood Avenue medication cart. She placed her key in the unengaged lock and was stopped by the surveyor. The surveyor asked Nurse #2 to open the medication cart drawer prior to turning the key, and the drawer opened. The observation revealed various prescribed and over-the-counter medications and supplies, including eye drops,…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-03-07 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
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 reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete and transmit a discharge and a death Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within the required timeframe for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessments (Resident #52 and Resident #18). The findings included: 1. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #52's medical record revealed that she was discharged to assisted living on [DATE]. A review of Resident #52's medical record revealed the last completed MDS was an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE]. There was no discharge MDS assessment completed or transmitted. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:19 pm with the MDS Coordinator, she checked both the former electronic medical record system and the current electronic medical record system, and was not able to locate a discharge MDS in either system. She stated that she was not sure why a discharge MDS assessment was not completed or transmitted for Resident #52. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:07…
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.
“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.
- 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
$57,971 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $47,444 — penalty dated 2025-09-23
- $10,527 — penalty dated 2024-03-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 4.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE CYPRESS OF CHARLOTTE CLUB INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/1998 |
| TOWNEBANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 09/01/1998 |
| LUCENTE, SARAH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/10/2026 |
| HARRISON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/21/2011 |
| HIGGINS, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/21/2011 |
| JENKINS, CATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/24/2026 |
| ANDREASEN, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/15/2024 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/27/2025 |
| THE CYPRESS OF CHARLOTTE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/28/2025 |
| GAMBINO, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/27/2025 |
| JENSEN, HARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/17/2020 |
| MYLLY, CAITLIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/16/2025 |
| LCS RELIANCE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
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 345495. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-16, 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.