Treyburn Rehabilitation Center
2059 Torredge Road, Durham, NC 27712 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 132 certified beds · (919) 477-4474 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $124,534 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-19)
- 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 (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 improved from 1 to 3 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 | 12.4% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.3% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.5% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.6% | 21.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.5% | 5.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.8% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.5% | 14.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.4% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.9% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 156 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.5% 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 51 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 7% 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 | 61.8%CMS range 52.2–68.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.0–13.7 | 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 | 72.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 76.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 64.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.7% | 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 | 75.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.3% | 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 | 5.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.6%CMS range 3.3–8.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 132 beds and averages 100.2 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-19 · 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 review and interviews with staff, Responsible Party (RP) and Physicians the facility failed to immediately notify the responsible party when Resident # 6's intravenous fluids (IV) infiltrated (IV fluids going into the surrounding tissue instead of the vein), and the fluids were placed on hold. At the time of infiltration, the resident had already been identified to have new swallowing problems, nausea, and no food intake for multiple consecutive meals. Resident # 6's family reported she would have requested the resident be sent to the hospital if she had known about any delay with the IV fluids. After the IV infiltration, the resident was transferred hours later to the hospital and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for a principal diagnosis of sepsis. (Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that happens when the body's immune system has an extreme response to an infection, causing organ dysfunction. The body's reaction causes damage to its own tissues and organs, and it can lead to shock,…
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 before2024-06-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with staff, resident, Responsible Party (RP, ) Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistants, and Physicians the facility failed to effectively communicate amongst their staff and with the medical providers and family and to ensure assessment and treatment occurred for a resident who was showing signs of a change in condition and whose family had initially requested the resident be transferred to the hospital but agreed with facility treatment based on the understanding the resident would receive appropriate evaluation and treatment at the nursing home. The resident's status deteriorated while still at the facility, and she was transferred to the hospital where she was emergently intubated (a tube is placed down an individual's throat, and they are placed on a machine to help them breathe) and admitted to the intensive care unit with a principal problem of sepsis with acute organ dysfunction. (Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that happens when the body's immune system has…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-19 · 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 investigate the root cause of the repeated falls and provide supervision to prevent more falls from occurring. One of these falls required hospital intervention with sutures for lacerations to the nose and forehead and another fall the same day required hospital intervention with additional sutures to the back of the head. This resident did not return to the facility after the last fall with injury. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #8). The findings included: Resident #8 was admitted [DATE] with metabolic encephalopathy(any brain disturbance of the brain's function), history of multiple falls at home, osteoarthritis of the knees, intervertebral disc degeneration and macular degeneration. Review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan included a care area risk for falls with an initiation date of 4/5/24. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #8 had…
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 · D2026-06-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 staff and resident, the facility failed to get the resident out of bed for 3 consecutive days which caused the resident to feel frustrated because he was stuck in bed. The deficient practice affected 1 of 2 residents reviewed for choices (Resident #100).Findings included:Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes and neuropathy.The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] for Resident #100 documented he had an intact cognition. The resident was dependent for all activities of daily living including transfers.The care plan last updated on 5/14/26 with his assessment documented Resident #100 required assistance with all his activities of daily living. Transfer was by mechanical lift by 2 staff. On 6/23/2026 at 10:18 am Resident #100 was observed and interviewed. The Resident stated he was not assisted out of bed on 6/19/26, 6/20/26, and 6/21/26 and indicated he asked Nursing Assistant (NA) #3 to get him up as usual every…
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 before2026-06-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff, Responsible Party, Cancer Clinic Supervisor, Physician, and Oncologist interviews the facility failed to ensure that Resident #93 with metastatic prostate cancer received the medically necessary recommended six-month oncology follow-up appointment for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for medically necessary oncology follow-up services.The findings included:Resident #93 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included communication deficit, dementia, and metastatic prostate cancer involving the lymph nodes.The quarterly Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #93 was severely cognitively impaired and had a diagnosis of cancer.Review of the cancer clinic visit dated 6/13/25 revealed Resident #93's documented diagnoses were prostate cancer with intrapelvic lymph node involvement. The recommendations included Resident #93's continuation of maintenance injection therapy and follow-up every six months to monitor the resident's condition,…
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 · D2026-06-30 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 follow a pharmacy recommendation to discontinue a medication for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication (Resident #100). Findings included:Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes and neuropathy.The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] for Resident #100 documented he had an intact cognition. The monthly medication pharmacy review dated 5/21/26 for Resident #100 revealed a documented recommendation to discontinue the Zinc Sulfate 220 milligrams each day. The pharmacist documented that the resident's skin was intact, and the zinc was no longer needed. The recommendation was signed and approved by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) dated 6/1/26.A review of Resident #100's medication orders revealed there was not an order to discontinue Zinc Sulfate 220 milligrams each day. A review of Resident #100's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident had documented nursing initials for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-06 · 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 review and interviews with staff and residents, the facility failed to protect the right of a resident (Resident # 2) to be free of abuse when another resident (Resident # 3), who was experiencing an increase in agitated behaviors while diagnosed with a urinary tract infection, hit Resident # 2 in the head with a reacher. (A reacher is a metal assistive device used to grab items that are out of reach). This was for one of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The findings included: Record review revealed Resident # 3 resided at the facility from 10/29/19 until his final discharge on [DATE]. Although not inclusive of all diagnoses, Resident # 3 had a history of hip fracture, vascular dementia, and insomnia. Review of Resident # 3's 10/9/24 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident # 3 was moderately cognitively impaired. He was not assessed to have behavioral problems during the assessment period. The resident was coded as using a wheelchair for mobility. On 11/19/24…
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 · D2024-06-19 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 maintain a complete and accurate medical record by not obtaining a Physician order to hold Intravenous fluids, incomplete oral intake records and inaccurate medication administration times on 5/28/24 that did not match the times Nurse #8 reported administering the medications for Resident #6. This was for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical records. The findings included: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record by not obtaining a Physician order to hold Intravenous fluids, incomplete oral intake records and inaccurate medication administration times on 5/28/24 that did not match the times Nurse #8 reported administering the medications for Resident #6. This was for of 1 of 12 residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical records. The findings included: 1a. Resident # 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Nurse # 1 documented a nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to discard expired food from the walk-in refrigerator, label and date thickened liquids in reach-in refrigerator and maintain the kitchen equipment and bin holding scoops and ladles clean. The facility failed to label, and date opened dietary supplements and thickened liquids, and discard expired food from 2 of 2 nourishment refrigerator (Nourishment refrigerator in Kitchenette #2 and Kitchenette #1). These practices had the potential to affect food served to the residents. Finding included: 1. An observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/26/24 at 9:17 AM revealed an aluminum pan containing multiple individual cups of yogurt and nutritional supplements on ice. Observation revealed ten, 4-ounce cups of yogurt with an expiration date 2/25/24. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 2/26/24 at 9:20 AM, she indicated the aluminum pan contained yogurt and supplements for lunch meal. She stated the expired dates for the yogurt cups were overlooked. She indicated the expired yogurt cups would be discarded.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · 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 observations, record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality's Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that were put in place following the annual recertification and complaint survey conducted on 3/30/23. This was for recited deficiencies in the areas of Food Procurement/Prepare/serve-Sanitary (F812) and Care Plan Timing and Revision(F657). These deficiencies were recited during an annual recertification and complaint survey conducted on 2/29/24. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. Findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F812: Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to discard expired food from the walk-in refrigerator, label and date thickened liquids in reach-in refrigerator and failed to maintain the kitchen equipment clean. The facility failed to label, and date opened dietary supplements and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to have Advance Directives (code status) in the residents' records for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #41). Findings included: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. Resident #41's comprehensive care plan dated 1/4/24 did not contain information regarding code status or Advance Directives. At the time of physician's orders review on 2/26/24, there was no active order for code status in Resident #41's medical record in neither the Electronic Health Record (EHR) nor hard copy chart. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 2/27/24 at 12:15 PM. Nurse #1 stated the code status was usually displayed in EHR, next to the resident's picture, in the physician's orders or hard copy chart for Advance Directives. Nurse #1 confirmed that there was no documentation to indicate the code status for…
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 · D2024-02-29 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation for an allegation of physical abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 68) investigated for abuse. The findings included: Review of the abuse neglect policy dated 1/3/24, read in part: revealed the facility protocol included an investigation checklist which included a review of the staff schedule, interview(s) of employees directly involved and witness(es) who observed or had knowledge of the alleged incident or injury and complete statements of the event, interview the resident, other residents, visitors, vendors, and complete witness(es) statements of the event. Resident # 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set(MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #68's cognition was intact. The facility 24- hour incident report dated 10/3/23 at 11:00 AM, revealed the facility was made aware by Resident #68 that Nurse Aide #2 had pulled her hair and stuck a finger in her ear. 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 · D2024-02-29 · 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 review, and staff interview the facility failed to conduct a baseline care plan within 72 hours of admission for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for base line care plan. (Resident #91 and Resident #252). Findings included: 1. Resident #91 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #91 was admitted on [DATE]. The resident was assessed as cognitively intact. Review of the discharge return anticipated MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was discharged to hospital. The resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Social Worker (SW) note dated 2/26/24 indicated the interdisciplinary team completed a 72-hour meeting for readmission. The code status and resident discharge plan to return home were discussed. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 10:42 AM, Resident #91 stated she does not recollect having a base line care plan meeting and a summary of baseline care plan provided to her. Resident further…
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 · D2024-02-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 and staff interviews the facility failed to involve residents and/or resident's representatives in the care planning process for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for care plan participation (Residents # 41). The findings included: Resident #41 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses in part, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, and dementia. A record review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was assessed as severely cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for most of the activity of daily living. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plan revealed it was reviewed by staff on 1/4/24 but there was no indication that the resident and/or resident's representative participated in the care plan meeting or in the development of Resident #41's plan of care. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 12:31 PM, Resident #41 indicated he or his family had not participated in his care plan meeting and 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 · E2023-08-11 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — patternEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and 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, resident interview, staff interview, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, and Psychologist interview the facility failed to assure the providers of psychiatric services were aware of altercations and behaviors for residents for whom the psychiatric providers were treating. This was for three (Residents # 5, # 6, an #8) of three residents reviewed for behavioral problems. The findings included. 1. Review of Resident # 5's record revealed Resident # 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had a diagnosis of depression and a diagnosis of cognitive social or emotional deficit following a stroke. Resident # 5's annual Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], coded Resident # 5 as cognitively intact and as independent in his locomotion within the facility. Resident # 5 was not coded to have behavior problems during the MDS assessment period. Resident # 5's care plan noted Resident # 5 had behaviors related to inappropriate sexual advances and sexually inappropriate language…
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 · D2023-08-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview the facility failed to implement their abuse policy to 1) assure an abuse allegation was reported to facility administration immediately in order that administration take further actions per their policy and 2) to assure the investigation was thorough enough to identify and talk with a witness who had been present. This was for one (Resident # 6) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The findings included: The facility's abuse policy, last revised on 8/30/2022, included the following information. The center will investigate any alleged abuse/neglect or misappropriation of resident property in accordance with state or federal law. The center will report such allegations to the state, as per state/federal regulation. The center will report immediately but no later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Resident # 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].…
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
$124,534 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $124,534 — penalty dated 2024-06-19
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRONQUIST 2015 FAMILY TR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2015 |
| MANGINE, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2014 |
| 2059, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2014 |
| HEALTH SERVICES PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2014 |
| BERKADIA COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 05/01/2014 |
| CHERY, DAWN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/08/2017 |
| KAAR, SUSAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2014 |
| KERLEY, STEVEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2021 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| SOUTHERN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/31/2016 |
| SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE DISBURSEMENTS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2014 |
| CRONQUIST, ROYCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2018 |
| MELTON, DONALD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2016 |
| NOTERMANN, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/15/2023 |
| O BRIEN, PATRICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/18/2019 |
| SALTER, JON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/21/2025 |
| NOTERMANN, BRENDA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/27/2025 |
| KELLY, MICHELLE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
7 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.
About 71% 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 $706K 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
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 345458. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-30, 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.