Copperfield Health & Rehabilitation
515 Lake Concord Road NE, Concord, NC 28025 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (704) 784-4494 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0607) — most recent Feb 2026
- inspectors cited 6 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $73,983 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-27)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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.
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 | 12.5% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.1% | 5.9% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 3.1% | 3.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.4% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.9% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.5% | 14.0% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.1% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.1% | 22.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.1% | 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.
27.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 64 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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
| 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 | 27.7%CMS range 19.3–37.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 6.8–15.2 | 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 | 96.3% | 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 | 3.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 120 beds and averages 103.3 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 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 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.33 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
21 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-11 · 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 observation, record review, and responsible party, Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations and staff interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's privacy for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2). Nurse aide (NA) # 1 and NA # 2 provided personal care to Resident # 2 while live streaming on a cell phone. The staff allowed a prison inmate who was watching the live stream to view the resident while the resident was naked from the waist up and while care was provided; the staff allowed this live streaming while other inmates were observed in the open area behind him. As Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired, the reasonable person concept was applied. A reasonable person would have been traumatized and have feelings of worthlessness, powerlessness and dehumanization through people that were not caregivers viewing them naked and while care was provided without consent. Immediate jeopardy began on 10/4/24 when Resident #2's privacy was violated. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 12/5/24 when 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 observation, record review, and family, Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2). Nurse aide (NA) # 1 and NA # 2 provided personal care to Resident # 2 while live streaming on a cell phone, the resident was naked from the waist up, the staff and the prison inmate watching the live stream spoke with profanity and vulgarity without any regard for the resident; the staff did not explain care as it was provided to the resident; the staff were physically aggressive during care; the staff allowed an inmate who was watching the live stream to view the resident and speak to the resident; the staff allowed this live streaming while other inmates were observed in the open area behind him. As Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired, the reasonable person concept was applied. A reasonable person would have been traumatized by being abused by caregivers in their home environment making…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-11 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and responsible party, Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement abuse policies in the area of identification, protection and reporting for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2). While Resident # 2 was being abused, neither of the two nurse aides (NA #1 and NA #2) in the room identified the abuse, intervened to stop the abuse, and neither of the two nurse aides reported the abuse immediately to licensed staff or administrative staff. Immediate jeopardy began on 10/4/24 when Resident #2 was abused without staff identification, intervention or reporting. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 12/5/24 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at the scope and severity of D (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put into place and are effective. The findings included: A review of the facility policy and procedure…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-07-28 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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, resident, family, nurse practitioner (NP), physician (MD), and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the MD of a resident who experienced pain following a fall for 1 of 3 residents investigated for notification of changes (Resident #94). Resident #94 sustained a fall on 6/2/2023 and reported the fall and right hip pain to Physical Therapist (PT) #1 on 6/3/2023. PT #1 reported the fall and the hip pain to a nurse. Resident #94 reported the fall and right hip pain when she was assessed by NP#2 on 6/5/2023. NP#2 ordered an x-ray of the right hip, which revealed a fractured femur (the long bone in the leg). Resident #94 was sent to the hospital on 6/6/2023 at 12:30 AM and had a partial hip replacement surgery on 6/7/2023. Immediately Jeopardy began on 6/3/2023 when Resident #94 reported the fall and right hip pain to PT #1 and the MD was not notified. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 7/26/2023when the facility implemented a credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-07-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record reviews, and resident, family member, Physical Therapist (PT) #1, Nurse Practitioner #2, Director of Rehab Services, Physician (MD), and staff interviews, the facility neglected to protect a resident from the right to be free from deprivation of goods and services related to pain management and initiating medical care and treatment after a fall on 6/2/2023 for 1 of 4 residents investigated for abuse/neglect (Resident #94). Nurse Practitioner (NP) #2 completed Resident #94's admission assessment on 6/5/2023 and Resident #94 reported the fall on 6/2/2023 and pain in her right hip since the fall. An x-ray of the right hip revealed a right femoral neck fracture (type of hip fracture of the thigh bone). Resident #94 was sent to the hospital on 6/6/2023 and had a partial hip replacement surgery on 6/7/2023. Immediately Jeopardy began on 6/3/2023 when Resident #94 reported right hip pain after a fall and was not assessed by nursing staff to determine what medical care and services were needed. Immediate…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-07-28 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management 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 reviews, resident, family, nurse practitioner, physician, and staff interviews, the facility failed to effectively manage pain for a resident after she experienced a fall and reported pain for 1 of 5 residents investigated for pain management (Resident #94). Resident #94 experienced pain that caused her to yell and scream. The pain affected her ability to go to the bathroom and she became incontinent. Immediately Jeopardy began on 6/3/2023 when Resident #94 reported hip pain to Physical Therapist (PT) #1 and nursing did not effectively manage her pain. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 7/26/2023 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at a scope and severity level of D (not actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) for the facility to complete staff training and to ensure monitoring systems put in place are effective. The findings included: Resident #94 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 observation, record review, and interviews with resident, staff, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse when Resident #6, who had a known history of aggressive behaviors toward others, physically abused 2 of 5 residents (Resident #10 and Resident #117) reviewed for abuse. On 11/24/25 Resident #6 hit Resident #10, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, in the face resulting in a bruised, swollen, and busted open and bleeding lip. On 1/10/26 Resident #6 spat on and punched Resident #10 in the face resulting in swelling to the right eyebrow and swelling, bruising, and a gash on her upper lip. Resident #10 did not have the cognitive capacity to express an adverse psychosocial outcome. A reasonable person would have experienced feelings such as fear, anxiety, isolation, and withdrawal. On 2/13/26 Resident #6 struck Resident #117 multiple times in the head and upper body. Resident #117 had no physical injuries but reported that…
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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 follow the planned menu for residents prescribed a mechanically altered diet during 2 of 2 lunch meal observations. This deficient practice affected 1 of 5 residents observed on mechanically altered diets (Resident #78) and 23 other residents who were prescribed a mechanically altered diet. Findings included: Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including protein calorie malnutrition, lipoprotein deficiency (inherited metabolic disorder where a defective gene prevents the body from producing the enzyme needed to break down dietary fat), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #78 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS was coded for Resident #78 receiving a mechanically altered diet. Review of the physician order dated 1/7/2026 indicated Resident #78 required a mechanically altered diet with thin liquids for diagnosis 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 · Ecited before2026-02-27 · 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date leftover food stored for use, discard food past its use-by-date and discard food showing signs of spoilage in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler and 1 of 1 walk-in freezer. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included:a. During an initial observation of the facility's kitchen with the Regional Dietary Manager and the Dietary Manager on 2/16/2026 at 9:52 AM, the walk-in freezer was noted to have the following concerns: - An opened unsealed package of chicken tenderloins with signs of frost bite spots and discolored grayish brown patches; - An opened, unlabeled, and unsealed package of chicken breasts with signs of frost bite spots and discolored grayish brown patches; - One opened, unlabeled, unsealed box of chocolate chip cookies with signs of frost bite spots and discolored grayish brown patches and; - One opened, unlabeled, unsealed package of biscuit dough with ice crystal formation. b. During an initial observation of the facility's kitchen with the Regional…
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 · D2026-02-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 interviews with resident, staff, and Nurse Practitioner (NP), the facility failed to administer oxygen as ordered by the physician for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #59). The findings included:Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic respiratory failure.Review of physician orders dated 10/02/2025 revealed an order for oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously for shortness of breath.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 was cognitively intact, received oxygen therapy and utilized a non-invasive mechanical ventilator.Observations of Resident #59's oxygen via nasal cannula connected to the bedside oxygen flowmeter revealed the oxygen was set at 2 liters per minute on 02/16/2026 at 11:00 AM, 02/17/2026 at 10:00 AM, and 02/18/2026 at 10:00 AM.An interview 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 · Dcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect 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 interviews with staff, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from misappropriation of controlled medications for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of a resident's property (Resident #6). The resident received her pain medication as scheduled. Findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy, last updated on 10/22/24, was reviewed and it included misappropriation in part was the protection of resident property means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic pain. Resident #6 had an order for oxycodone 10 milligrams (mg) every 6 hours for chronic pain dated 2/13/24. A pharmacy packing slip dated 3/25/24 documented dispense date of 3/25/24 of 4 cards of oxycodone 10 mg and each card had 10 tablets for a total of 40 tablets. A review of 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 · D2024-12-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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 observations, record review, and interviews with Resident #65 and staff, the facility failed to provide nail care and hand hygiene for a dependent resident (Resident #65). This deficient practice affected 1 of 4 sampled dependent residents. Findings included: Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of limited range of motion. Resident #65's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented her cognition was intact. The resident required assistance from one staff member for bathing and personal grooming. The care plan for Resident #65 dated 9/13/24 included the resident required assistance with all activities of daily living. The intervention was nail care to be provided with showers or bathing. On 12/2/24 at 11:40 am an observation and interview was completed of Resident #65. The Resident was sitting in her bed in a hospital gown. The Resident's nails were noted to be uneven, long, and had black matter underneath the nails, especially the right hand. The resident stated she…
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 · D2024-12-11 · 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a quarterly smoking assessments for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #31 and Resident #72). The findings included: 1a. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, muscle weakness, dementia, and blindness in one eye. Review of Resident #31's annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was coded for smoking. Review of Resident #31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and was totally dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADL). Resident #31 was coded for moderate visual impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #31's mobility device was a wheelchair use. Review of Resident #31's care plan revised on 12/4/24 revealed the resident was a smoker and was supervised because he was once non-compliant with smoking policy and witnessed smoking in his room. The goal was for Resident #31s smoking…
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 · D2024-12-11 · 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 manufacturer's recommendations, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to date three opened bottles of artificial tears stored for use in 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for medication storage (the B-hall medication cart). Findings included: A review of the manufacturer's recommendations for artificial tears stated after the bottle was opened it should have been discarded after 28 days. On 12/3/2024 at 11:00 am an observation of the B-hall medication cart with Nurse #5 revealed 3 bottles of artificial tears were found without an open date. Nurse #5 stated the bottles were in the boxes and the date was on the box on the previous evening. Nurse #5 stated either the bottle or the box should be dated when the bottle is opened. On 12/9/2024 at 11:06 am the Director of Nursing was interviewed by phone, and she sated the bottles of artificial tears that were opened in the B-hall medication cart should have been dated when they were opened. The Administrator was present during the interview and stated either the box or the bottle of the artificial tears should…
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 before2023-09-14 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect 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 staff interviews the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free of misappropriation of narcotic pain medication for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for misappropriation of resident property. Findings included: A review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated 11/1/2020 indicated the facility would prohibit and prevent misappropriation of resident property. Resident #1 was admitted for a short stay for rehabilitation to the facility on 7/14/2023 after a hospitalization for encephalopathy and weakness. A review of Resident #1's Physician's Orders revealed he did not have an order for hydromorphone. An admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers, and he did not require pain medication. Attempted to call Resident #1 during the survey and there was no answer at the number the facility had for him, and the phone did not receive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and interviews with staff, the facility failed to maintain the exterior facility grounds clean, free of broken equipment and trash and repair broken floor tiles in the kitchen. This failure occurred for one to nine months. The findings included: 1. On 7/19/23 at 1:42 PM, an observation of the exterior facility grounds revealed two commercial dumpsters. One dumpster was open without a lid, filled with cardboard and no room for additional storage. The second commercial dumpster's lid was closed with room for additional storage. The following broken items were observed stored on the ground or propped against the facility: Multiple boards of sheet rock, propped against the facility. One broken shower chair stored on the ground. Four cement stairs stored on the ground. Five wooden pallets, broken, stored on the ground. One black leather chair, broken and stored on the ground. One used surgical face mask, stored on the ground. Four particle board headboards and footboards, broken, propped against the facility shed. One used glove, laying on the ground. Two recliner…
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 · Ecited before2023-07-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain one of one freezer free of accumulated ice and remove pooled water on the kitchen floor. This failure occurred for approximately four months and had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: 1. An observation of the walk-in freezer occurred on 7/17/23 at 11:45 AM. A metal storage rack approximately 11 inches in height was observed with milk crates stored on top. The milk crates were approximately 11 inches in height. Multiple cases of carrot coins, crinkle cut French fries and garlic bread were stored on top of the milk crates. Ice was observed on top of these cases of food items and the ice extended to the floor, approximately 22 inches and pooled on the floor around the base of the metal storage rack. The ice was also observed inside the cases of food items and on the food. The freezer compressor was observed with ice accumulation and water dripping. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated in an interview on 7/17/23 at 11:45 AM that compressor had been leaking 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 · E2023-07-28 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions the committee put into place following the 8/31/2021 infection control and complaint investigation survey, 2/14/2022 recertification and complaint investigation, 7/29/2022 complaint investigation survey. The facility had deficiencies previously cited in the areas of notification of change (F580), baseline care plans (F655) and kitchen sanitation (F812). F580 was cited on 8/31/2021 during a complaint investigation and infection control survey, on 2/14/2022 during a recertification and complaint investigation survey, and on 7/29/2022 during a complaint investigation survey; F655 was cited on 2/14/2022 during recertification and complaint investigation survey and F812 was cited on 2/14/2022 during a recertification and complaint investigation and on 7/29/2022 during a complaint investigation. These deficiencies were cited again during the facility's current recertification and complaint investigation survey…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-28 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by observations of current pest activity in 3 of 3 resident rooms, on two of two units, and the conference room. The facility failed to utilize insect light traps and implement pest service recommendations for four months to prevent reoccurring pest activity. The findings included: 1 a. Observations of live pest activity occurred on the following: - On 7/17/23 at 12:33 PM, flies were observed flying around the covered lunch meal tray that was stored on the over bed table in room [ROOM NUMBER] on the A/B unit. - On 7/17/23 at 12:55 PM, multiple small flying insects were observed flying around the nightstand in room [ROOM NUMBER] on the C/D unit. - On 7/17/23 at 12:59 PM, flies were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on the C/D unit. - On 7/19/23 at 11:21 AM, multiple flies were observed on the C/D unit flying around the open food cart. - On 7/19/23 at 11:44 AM a spider was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-28 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission that addressed the needs of a resident with a history of frequent falls for 1 of 29 residents reviewed for baseline care plans (Resident #94). The findings included: Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #94 included difficulty walking, frequent falls, and Parkinson's disease. A review of the medical record revealed no baseline care plan was in place for Resident #94 dated 6/2, 6/3, 6/4 or 6/5/2023. Resident #94 was discharged to the hospital on 6/5/2023. The discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #94 had a fall since admission with a major injury. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #94 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the medical record for Resident #94 revealed a baseline care plan was created on 7/2/2023. An interview was conducted with Nurse #6 on 7/21/2023 at 12:10 PM.…
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 · B2024-12-11 · tag F0623 — patternProvide 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 interviews, the facility failed to notify Resident #27's Representative and Resident #28 in writing, of transfers to the hospital for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #27 and Resident #28). The findings included: 1. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #27 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], 8/4/24, and 11/9/24. The most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #27 to be severely cognitively impaired. a. Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed a progress note dated 2/28/24 that documented Resident #27's transfer to the hospital for difficulty swallowing. A progress note dated 3/7/24 documented Resident #27's return from the hospital with a diagnosis of elevated sodium level. Review of the medical record revealed no transfer notification. b. A progress note dated 8/3/24 documented Resident #27's transfer to the hospital after a fall and complaints of head pain. A progress note dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$73,983 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $29,201 — penalty dated 2026-02-27
- $44,782 — penalty dated 2024-12-11
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 76% 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 $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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
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.
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 345130. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-27, 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.