No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Wilora Lake Healthcare

6001 Wilora Lake Road, Charlotte, NC 28212 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (704) 563-2922 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuse
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2026
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (66%) 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
5717 Albemarle Rd · (704) 563-2150 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
5700 Albemarle Rd · (704) 531-3591 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
5861 Albemarle Rd
Park
6601 Barcliff Dr · (704) 643-5725 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
6108 Wilora Lake Rd · (980) 272-7435

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 4 to 1 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.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased12.9%15.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.5%7.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.9%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.3%5.9%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.3%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.6%18.3%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.7%21.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.6%5.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control31.7%20.7%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.5%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.1%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine55.3%78.1%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission23.4%22.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit6.6%12.9%12.0%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.

49.8% 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 38 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

49.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
59.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.46U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.19hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 59.4% 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 64 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 43% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF49.8%CMS range 36.1–62.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 6.8–15.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge59.4%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge62.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge42.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified89.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting97.1%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 4.2–14.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.001.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.45
RN hours/ resident / day
0.85
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.87
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.17
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.21
RN hoursweekends
66.2%
Total nursing turnover
72.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 61.4 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.17 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-24)
10
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-20)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

  • Potential for harm · E2026-04-24 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — pattern
    Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
    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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident from misappropriation of personal funds when the former Business Office Manager used a resident's debit card to pay the former Business Office Manager's personal bills. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for prevent misappropriation of resident property (Resident #14). The findings included:Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #14 was her own Responsible Party.A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #14 was cognitively intact.A review of the Initial Allegation Report dated 3/6/2026 indicated the facility became aware of the misappropriation of Resident #14's funds by the former Business Office Manager on 3/6/2026 when the Travel Business Office Manager assumed the former Business Office Manager's duties of assisting Resident #14 with an ongoing Medicaid application. The former Business Office Manager had resigned her position as…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide toileting hygiene after a bowel movement and prior to placing a new and clean pull up on a resident dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #24).The findings included:Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus, neurogenic bladder with suprapubic urinary catheter, muscles weakness and lymphedema.Resident #24's care plan dated 02/26/26 revealed a focus area for impaired physical mobility with goal for resident to be able to perform activity within physical limits. The interventions included:Consult physical therapy per order.Determine level of assistance needed based on activities of daily living (ADL) evaluation.Encourage resident to increase activity as indicated.Evaluate resident's ability to perform ADL.Monitor for environment barriers to mobility.Observe resident's posture and gait.Observe range…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow their Infection Control policies and procedures for Hand Hygiene when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 failed to sanitize his hands in between changing his gloves while providing suprapubic urinary catheter care to Resident #24. The facility also failed to follow their Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EPB) policy and procedure when NA #1 failed to wear a gown while providing incontinence care and while transferring Resident #24 and then NA #1 and NA #2 adjusted the same resident up in the bed after placing a turn sheet under her without wearing a gown. The deficient practice occurred for 2 of 8 staff observed for infection control practices (NA #1 and NA #2).The findings included:1. a. Review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy and procedure which is part of the Infection Control policies and procedures last revised on 11/13/25 revealed the following:Policy: All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    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, Resident Representative, and Department of Social Services (DSS) Guardian interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were given the right to participate in the revision of their person-centered care plans for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for care planning (Resident #12 and Resident #14). The findings included: 1. Resident #12 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included rheumatoid arthritis, frequent falls, depression, degenerative joint disease, and chronic joint pain. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments dated 10/31/2024 and 01/24/2025 specified Resident #12 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #12's electronic medical record revealed no evidence that she was invited to attend care plan meetings to discuss and provide input regarding her plan of care. An interview with Resident #12 on 02/10/2025 at 2:42 PM revealed that she did not recall being invited to a care plan conference or having her goals/progress discussed with her. 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep 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, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide personal privacy during incontinent care when the Nurse Aide exited the room during care and left the door to Resident #48's room open while the resident was unclothed and uncovered resulting in the resident being visible from the hallway while he was exposed. This deficient practice affected 1 of 1 resident reviewed for privacy (Resident 48). The findings included: Resident # 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #48 was cognitively intact, frequently incontinent, and dependent on assistance for activities of daily living (ADL). An observation of incontinent care provided by Nurse Aide (NA) #1 for Resident #48 was conducted on 2/12/25 at 6:22 AM. NA #1 placed gloves on her hands outside the room. She was observed to have washcloths and linen supplies in the room with running water in the bathroom sink. She wiped 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from resident-to-resident abuse when Resident #20 hit Resident #7 on the back of his head and neck with a metal cane after Resident #7 entered back into their shared room to retrieve a personal item. Resident #7 had a raised red area on the back of his neck. This affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #7). The findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes and essential primary hypertension. A review of Resident #7's care plan updated on 12/23/24 read he had a psychosocial wellbeing problem potentially related to disease process. The goal read Resident #7 will demonstrate adjustment to nursing home placement through review date. The interventions included allowing time to answer questions and verbalize feelings perceptions, and fears and initiate referrals as needed. Review of the annual Minimum Data…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to maintain documented evidence of a thorough investigation of an allegation of misappropriation of medication for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #278 & #279) reviewed for misappropriation of property. Findings included: a. Resident #278 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension and non-Alzheimer's dementia. b. Resident #279 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on 7/31/24. Her diagnoses included Diabetes Mellitus. The Initial Allegation Report dated 2/20/24 revealed the facility became aware of an allegation of drug diversion of resident drugs on 2/20/24 at 8:30 AM. Resident #278 was noted to be the affected resident. The Facility Investigation Report dated 2/22/24 read in part on the summary of the investigation for alleged narcotics missing for Resident #278. The Director of Nursing (DON) was notified that the narcotic medication was unable to be located in the narcotic lock box…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    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 and Regional Ombudsman interviews, the facility failed to provide a complete written notice of transfer/discharge that included the Nursing Home Hearing Request form to the Resident and Resident Representative for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. The findings included: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #20 was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of the record revealed Resident #20 had a Resident Representative (RR) listed as an emergency contact. A review of a nurse's progress note written by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 2/2/25 revealed Resident #20 was sent to the emergency room for a psychological evaluation and treatment due to behaviors. The facility did not readmit Resident #20. An interview with the DON on 2/13/25 at 12:52 PM revealed she called Resident #20's RR on 2/3/25 and informed him that Resident #20 was admitted to the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0626 — isolated
    Permit 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 Hospital Case Manager and staff interviews, the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility after being sent to the hospital for a medical evaluation using the residents' behaviors prior to discharge as a basis for their decision for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge (Resident #20). The findings included: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included end stage renal disease, essential primary hypertension, and unspecified intellectual disabilities. A review of a nurse's progress notes dated 2/2/25 revealed Resident #20 struck another resident with a cane, attempted to hit staff with objects and barricaded himself in his room. Resident #20 was sent to the emergency room for a psychological evaluation. A review of a second nurse's progress note dated 2/2/25 revealed Resident #20 was sent to the emergency room for a psychological evaluation and treatment due to behaviors. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/13/25…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of prognosis for a resident receiving Hospice services and discharge location for 2 of 27 reviewed for accuracy of assessment (Resident #9 and Resident #73). The findings included: 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and adult failure to thrive. A Hospice contract dated 01/14/2025 certified that Resident #9 was admitted under the care and services of Hospice for end of life. Further review of the Hospice admission documentation for Resident #9 indicated that a certification of Resident #9's prognosis of 6 months or less was received on 01/14/2025 at 9:24 AM. A significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] had been completed. Resident #9 was cognitively intact and received Hospice services. Resident #9's prognosis of 6 months or less was coded 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations,and family, staff, and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions consistent with resident's care plan (Resident #5 and Resident #6) and failed to provide a safe transfer using a mechanical lift for Resident #36. This deficient practice occurred for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #5, Resident #6 and Resident #36) reviewed for accidents. The findings included: Resident # 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included cerebral infarction with right side weakness, muscle weakness, unspecified dementia, and unsteady on feet. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired, required partial to moderate assistance for transfers, walking not attempted due to safety, no falls prior to admission and one fall since admission with no injury. The incident report dated 1/28/25 revealed that an aide and nurse observed resident sitting on buttocks on the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    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 Dialysis Nurse, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to maintain ongoing communication with the dialysis center and failed to consistently document assessments of the dialysis access site post dialysis including monitoring for bleeding, pain, and condition of skin for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis (Resident #53). The findings included: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease (ESRD) and dependent on dialysis. A physician's order written on 11/12/24 revealed Resident #53 to receive dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; check dialysis access site each shift for bruit (sound) and thrill (pulsation); assess site (left lower forearm) for bruising/symptoms of infection. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was moderately cognitively impaired and received dialysis services. Resident #53's active care plan dated 11/29/24 revealed a plan of care for requiring…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to disinfect a resident's dedicated glucometer according to manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting glucometers for 1 of 2 residents observed for infection control practices (Resident #69). The findings included: Review of the glucometers manual revealed only wipes with environmental protection agency (EPA) registration number listed in the tables could be used to clean the glucometers. Resident glucometers should be cleaned with EPA regulatory wipe once for cleaning followed by one wipe for disinfecting. Then allow the glucometer to dry for 3 minutes. The facility's infection control policy on disinfecting glucometer (Not Dated) included: 1. Wear appropriate protective gear such as disposable gloves. 2. Open the cap of disinfectant container and pull out 1 towelette to clean the meter and close the cap. 3. Wipe the entire surface of the meter 3 times horizontally and 3 times vertically using 1 towelette. Carefully wipe around the test strip port. 4. Properly dispose of the used…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2026-04-24 · tag F0628 — pattern
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    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 interviews with the Regional Ombudsman and staff, the facility failed to provide a written discharge notice to the resident and send a copy of the notice to the Regional Ombudsman for a resident discharged home for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for discharge (Resident #83). The findings included: Resident #83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. The resident's overall goal was for discharge to the community and active discharge planning was already occurring with referrals made to the local contact agency. A nursing note dated 3/31/26 at 7:21 PM stated Resident #83 was discharged home. She was alert and oriented and medication administration was explained and Resident #83 verbalized understanding by repeating the process.A review of Resident #83's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no transfer or discharge notice was issued to Resident #83. A telephone interview with Resident #83 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · No revisit needed

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AVARDIS HEALTH — 38 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.0≈ chain avg
Health inspection 2 of 51.9+0.1 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 52.3-1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.2+1.8 vs chain
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Ashland Nursing And RehabilitationAshland, VA 1 of 5Augusta Nursing and RehabilitationFishersville, VA 1 of 5Biltmore Haven Nursing and RehabilitationArden, NC 1 of 5Courtyard Health And RehabilitationMcComb, MS 1 of 5Emerald Ridge Health and RehabilitationAsheville, NC 1 of 5Ghent Health and RehabilitationNorfolk, VA 1 of 5Grand Trace Health And RehabilitationNatchez, MS 1 of 5Hibriten Mountain Nursing and RehabilitationLenoir, NC 1 of 5Highfield Nursing and RehabilitationCary, NC 1 of 5Kings Daughters Community Health & RehabStaunton, VA 1 of 5Middleton Oaks Health And RehabilitationWinona, MS 1 of 5Newport News Nursing & RehabNewport News, VA 1 of 5Pennknoll VillageEverett, PA 1 of 5The Oaks Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterMeridian, MS 1 of 5Wellington Rehabilitation and HealthcareKnightdale, NC 1 of 5Westwood Health and RehabilitationArchdale, NC 1 of 5Woodstock Valley Health and RehabilitationWoodstock, VA 2 of 5Clay County Health and RehabilitationHayesville, NC 2 of 5Crown Haven Health and RehabilitationCharlotte, NC 2 of 5Kannapolis Health and RehabilitationKannapolis, NC 2 of 5Manor At Penn Village, TheSelinsgrove, PA 2 of 5Manor At St Luke Village,theHazleton, PA 2 of 5Pavilion At St Luke Village, TheHazleton, PA 2 of 5Pheasant Ridge Nursing and RehabilitationRoanoke, VA 2 of 5Valley View Care and RehabilitationAndrews, NC 2 of 5Walnut Cove Health and RehabilitationWalnut Cove, NC 2 of 5Windsor Grove Health and RehabilitationWindsor, VA 3 of 5Forrest Oakes HealthcareAlbemarle, NC 3 of 5Hilltop Manor Health And Rehabilitation CenterUnion, MS 3 of 5Locust Grove Retirement VillageMifflin, PA 3 of 5Skyline Nursing & RehabilitationFloyd, VA 4 of 5Jamestown Health and RehabilitationWilliamsburg, VA 4 of 5Oak Grove HealthcareRutherfordton, NC 4 of 5Willowbrook Rehabilitation and CareYadkinville, NC 5 of 5Cardinal Healthcare and RehabilitationLincolnton, NC 5 of 5Grayson Health and RehabilitationIndependence, VANot rated (Special Focus)Starkville Manor Health Care And Rehabilitation CeStarkville, MS

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
CHARLOTTE PARENTCO LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
MECKLENBURG HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
NCOP HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
NU C II IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
NU C IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
SNF CARE CENTERS LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
ZENITH HOLDCO II LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
ZENITH HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2025
FC ENCORE CHARLOTTE, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
HOBACK, TIFFANYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
SEMONES, BRANDIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
SNF MGR LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/21/2025
BRYANT, DERECAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
CLEMENTS, THADIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
HILL, KEIZMAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025
JONES, TEQUILLAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.

10 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.

$7.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+12.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$391K
Related-party expense6% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 81%Medicare 4%Other / private 15%

About 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $391K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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

$297per resident / day
operating cost
$9,036per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$339per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in North Carolina
$9,733/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,798/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,496/mo
Assisted living

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 345473. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-24, 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.

What to do next