Belaire Health Care Center
2065 Lyon Street, Gastonia, NC 28052 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 80 certified beds · (704) 867-7300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $202,719 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-30)
- 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)
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 | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.5% | 15.6% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.3% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 2.2% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.2% | 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 | 3.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.7% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.3% | 21.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.5% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.4% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.7% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.4% | 22.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.1% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.23 | 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.
60.3% 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 324 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.5% 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 169 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 0.86 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | 60.3%CMS range 54.0–65.3 | 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 | 13.1%CMS range 10.2–16.1 | 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 | 35.5% | 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 | 42.0% | 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 | 43.8% | 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 | 97.4% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 81.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.9% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 4.0–9.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 80 beds and averages 76.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.80 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-11-28 · 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 review, family, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician's Assistant (PA), and physician (MD) interviews, the facility failed to communicate with Resident #1's Medical Provider about intermittent loose stools following an order for polyethylene glycol (a medication used to treat occasional constipation and soften stool) with a history of Clostridium difficile (a bacterial infection in the colon which have symptoms that range from diarrhea to life-threatening damage to the colon), also known as C-difficile. The facility failed to notify the medical provider of an abnormal stool culture for a resident with C-difficile. The facility failed to notify the medical provider of acute changes in condition consisting of multiple loose stools, increased confusion, disorientation, and new behavior of attempting to climb out of bed on 11/6/23, and low blood pressure that were not at her baseline. Resident #1 was sent to the emergency room and was diagnosed with sepsis (a life-threatening complication of a…
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 before2023-11-28 · 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 family, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA), and physician (MD) interviews, the facility failed to complete comprehensive assessments and determine the need for medical interventions for a resident who continued to experience loose stools post antibiotic treatment for Clostridium Difficile (C-Difficile) which ended on 10/24/23. (C-difficile is a bacterium that causes an infection of the colon. Symptoms can range from diarrhea to life-threatening damage to the colon.). The afternoon of 11/07/23 the resident had a significant change in condition including increased lethargy and confusion, low blood pressure, spitting out her pills and hollering out. There was no comprehensive assessment completed to determine if there was the need to seek medical attention. Staff did not recognize the significant change in condition until late in the evening on 11/07/23 and the resident was sent to the hospital for an evaluation. Hospital records dated 11/7/23 indicated the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · H2025-07-30 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, facility activity calendar, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure group activities were planned for outside of the facility to meet the needs of residents who expressed that it was important to them to attend group activities outside of the facility for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for activities (Resident #31, #44, #78, and #80). During interview, Resident #44 cried when speaking about his inability to enjoy his retirement because he was not able to do things outside such as eating at a restaurant, going to a baseball game, going out to see Christmas lights, socializing, going into a store and being able to touch items and shop for himself. Other residents expressed not being able to leave the facility made them feel like a dog, unimportant, sad, and they missed getting out with the group to shop, attend community activities, and socialize.The findings included: A review of the July 2025 activity calendar revealed scheduled activities for inside of the facility…
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 · Hcited before2023-01-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observation, record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain the dignity of residents by failing to provide enough size 3X briefs for 4 of 4 residents that wore 3X briefs (Residents #8, #55, #40, and #28). This resulted in residents experiencing fear of embarrassment, physical discomfort, not participating in activities, feeling upset, bothered, and crying. This practice affected all residents that wore size 3X briefs. The findings included: 1) Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diastolic heart failure, hypertension, and muscle weakness. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set for Resident #8 dated 10/28/22 revealed she was cognitively intact with no behaviors or rejection of care. She required extensive 1 person assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and hygiene. She required limited 1 person assist with walking in her room. Resident #8 was occasionally incontinent of bladder and bowel. During 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.
- Actual harm · H2023-01-20 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to order and provide enough size 3X briefs for 4 of 4 residents that wore 3X briefs (Residents #8, #55, #40, and #28). The residents reported the facility was often out of 3X briefs and the 2X briefs were too small, hurt my stomach, uncomfortable, too tight, rubbed and sometimes made my skin soreand they leaked. Resident #55 was observed wearing a 2X brief that fit tightly around her waist and there was a reddened area where the brief was fastened. This practice affected all residents that wore size 3X briefs. The findings included: 1) Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diastolic heart failure, hypertension, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set for Resident #8 dated 10/28/22 revealed she was cognitively intact with no behaviors or rejection of care. She required extensive 1 person assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and hygiene. She required…
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 before2025-07-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observations, record reviews, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care when a resident requested (Resident #44). The facility also failed to provide a privacy cover for urinary drainage bag which allowed the urinary drainage bag contents to be visible (Resident #31). This deficient practice was for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity (Residents #44 and Resident #31).1. Resident #44 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident (stroke), hypertension (high blood pressure), unspecified mood disorder, recurrent major depressive disorder. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 was cognitively intact, received a diuretic (a drug that causes the kidneys to make more urine) daily, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and required maximal assistance with incontinence care and toileting. A review of Resident #44's skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed redness to bilateral buttocks. An interview…
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 · D2025-07-30 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
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 Hospital Case Manager, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Transporter, and staff interviews, the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the first available bed at the facility after being sent to the hospital for a medical and psychiatric evaluation. The resident remained in the hospital for over two weeks despite being cleared to return to the nursing home on the same day. This deficient practice was evidenced for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge (Resident #92).Findings included: Resident #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 4/09/25 with diagnoses including intellectual disability, muscle weakness, and spinal cord disease. Review of 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #92 was severely cognitively impaired with wandering, verbal, and physical behaviors towards others. Review of nursing progress note written by Nurse #3 dated 4/09/25 revealed Resident #92 was combative with nursing staff. One-to-one…
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 before2025-07-30 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was completed for two residents with new mental health diagnoses for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #37 and #6) reviewed for PASRR. The findings include: 1. Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission on [DATE]. PASRR level I was completed on 5/13/17 prior to admission with a recommendation to resubmit paperwork for PASRR level II if a new mental health diagnosis was suspected or if there was a significant change in the resident's condition. The electronic medical record revealed Resident #37 was diagnosed with delusional disorder on 7/11/17, impulsive disorder on 3/30/18, mood affective disorder on 3/30/18, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder on 7/05/18. No PASRR level II was completed. An interview on 7/30/25 at 1:20 PM with Social Worker (SW) revealed she was responsible for completing PASRR…
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 · D2025-07-30 · 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 observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to post cautionary signage outside of resident room that indicated the use of oxygen for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #95).Findings included: Resident #95 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen levels). A review of Resident #95's care plan created on 07/21/25 revealed a plan for oxygen therapy to relieve hypoxia due to COPD. The stated goal was that Resident #95 would be free from respiratory complications. Interventions included oxygen via nasal cannula as ordered, monitor for signs of respiratory distress and notify provider if indicated, and administer medications as ordered. Resident #95's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/22/25 for oxygen via nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath at 2 liters per minute.Resident #95's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-24 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff, Resident Representative, and Home Health Nurse interviews, the facility failed to include discharge instructions for a daily surgical wound dressing change for 1 of 3 sampled residents with wound care (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged home on 5/18/25. Review of Resident #1's consultation records revealed an orthopedic consultation dated 5/16/25 with an order for daily dry dressing change to right hip. Resident #1's discharge Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was independent for decision making. Review of Resident #1's facility discharge instructions dated 5/18/25 for home care revealed no daily surgical wound dressing instructions. An interview on 6/24/25 at 9:56 AM with Resident #1's Representative revealed Resident #1 did not receive surgical wound care instructions when the resident was discharged from the facility on 05/18/25 until seen by Home Health on 05/21/25. An interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-24 · 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 staff, and orthopedic office Practice Manager interviews, the facility failed to provide care for a surgical wound as ordered by the consultant orthopedic physician for a daily surgical dressing for 1 of 3 sampled residents with wound care (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had diagnoses which included closed fracture of neck of right femur with routine healing. No surgical wound care instructions were noted on the hospital discharge summary. Review of facility orders revealed Resident #1 had a physician's order dated 5/08/25 to monitor the surgical dressing to right hip every shift and report any signs or symptoms of infection to physician every day and night shift for surgical wound care. Review of Resident #1's consultation records revealed an orthopedic consultation dated 5/16/25 with an order for daily dry dressing change to right hip. Review of facility orders revealed…
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 before2024-05-09 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 record reviews and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) application was completed for a resident admitted with mental health diagnoses for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #12 and #55) reviewed for PASRR. The findings included: 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included, in part, schizoaffective disorder. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed the resident had a PASRR level I completed prior to her admission to the facility. The resident had a history of schizoaffective disorder and major depressive disorder as part of her admission. No PASRR level II had been completed per review of Resident #12's medical record. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was severely cognitively impaired, and she had no mood or behaviors. The MDS was not coded for a level II PASRR. Resident #12's care plan dated 10/05/2023 revealed she was care planned for psychotropic medications,…
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 · E2023-01-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately enter the code status as full code in the Care Plan for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #35) and the facility failed to revise the Care Plan for 1 of 1 sampled resident to include fluid restrictions and non-compliance with fluid restrictions (Resident #64). The findings included: 1. Resident# 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A physician's order dated 7/5/22 indicated Resident # 35 was a full code. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident# 35 had severely impaired cognition. A signed MOST form revealed Resident #35 had a full code status. A Care Plan dated 11/17/22 indicated Resident #35 had a code status of Do Not Resuscitate. A Care Plan dated 8/19/22 indicated Resident #35 had a code status of Do Not Resuscitate. An interview with the MDS Coordinator on 1/4/23 at 4:20 PM revealed she was responsible for entering the code status into the Care Plan. During the interview, 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 · E2023-01-20 · 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
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide correct portions of pureed foods per the menu for 2 of 3 residents with a diet order for pureed foods (Resident #42 and #27). This failure had the potential to affect residents receiving pureed food. The findings included: A continuous observation of the lunch meal tray line occurred on 1/5/23 from 11:38 AM to 12:28 PM. On 1/5/23 at 12:23 PM, a 2-ounce serving utensil was observed used to plate pureed ham for Resident #42 and pureed beef for Resident #27. The plates for these residents were placed on the cart for delivery. Review of the lunch menu with the Dietary Manager (DM) revealed Residents with a diet order for pureed foods should receive a 4-ounce portion of pureed ham and a 5.33-ounce portion of pureed beef. During an interview on 1/5/23 at 12:25 PM, Dietary Aide #1 stated that the DM placed the serving utensils on the tray line, and she just picked up the utensils to plate the pureed foods for Residents #42 and #27. The DM stated in interview on 1/5/23 at 12:23 PM that she put 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 · D2023-01-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to maintain wheelchair armrests in good repair for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for mobility device (Resident #177 and #180). The findings included: 1.a. Resident #177 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #177 with severe impairment in cognition and her primary mobility device was a wheelchair. During an observation conducted on 01/03/23 at 11:15 AM, the right armrest of Resident #177's wheelchair was in disrepair with multiple torn spots and ripped lines. During the interview, Resident #177 was unable to tell the surveyor whether the broken armrest had caused any skin irritation to her right arm. On 01/04/23 at 12:39 PM, Resident #177 was seen sitting in her wheelchair in dining room and the right armrest remained in disrepair. She was wearing short sleeves and her right arm was seen in contact with the armrest during the observation. b.…
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 · D2023-01-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to remove 1 blister card of discontinued and expired promethazine, medication used for nausea and vomiting, for 1 of 5 medication carts (North medication cart #1) and 1 bottle of expired cranberry juice extract from 1 of 2 medication storage rooms (North medication storage room). The findings included: 1. a. Review of the facility's policy and procedures revised in August 2020 for discontinued medication under Section 5.3 indicated discontinued medications must be marked as discontinued and stored in a secure and separate area from the active medication until they were destroyed per facility policy or returned to the pharmacy when permissible by state regulation. Review of facility's policy and procedures revised in August 2020 for medication storage under Section 4.1 revealed all expired medications must be removed from the active supply immediately and destroyed in accordance with facility policy, regardless of amount remaining. During a medication storage check conducted on 01/04/23 at 2:20 PM, a…
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 · D2023-01-20 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 provide 2 of 2 sampled residents with double portions per their preference (Residents #1 and #7). The findings included: 1. Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included low body mass index (BMI), vitamin D deficiency, and dysphagia. A physician (MD) order dated 8/29/22 recorded a diet order for regular minced and moist diet, for dysphagia. A significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], assessed Resident #1 with unclear speech, usually understood by others, sometimes understands, severely impaired cognition, and able to feed himself with set up assistance. A care plan revised 12/6/22 identified Resident #1 with low BMI, stable weights, received double portions and fed himself with adaptive equipment. Interventions included to provide and serve a diet per order and preferences. A Nutrition assessment dated [DATE] written by the Registered Dietitian (RD) recorded Resident #1 received a…
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
$202,719 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $84,529 — penalty dated 2025-07-30
- $118,190 — penalty dated 2023-11-28
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 LIFEWORKS REHAB — 64 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BELAIRE HOLDINGS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/28/2021 |
| CHARLES 1994 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| CK 2008 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| DRM SOUTH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| EDWARD 1998 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| LAUREN 2020 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| LAUREN 2020 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| LEPS 2003 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| NORMAN 5571 & FAMILY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| NORMAN 5571 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| NORMAN 5571 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| RL 2008 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| ROBIN 2008 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| ROBIN 2008 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| SAUL 2012 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| SPRINGROCK SOUTH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| SUMMER SOUTH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| CARVER, DENNIS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/13/2023 |
| RSBRM SOUTH MANAGER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/28/2021 |
18 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.
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 345457. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-30, 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.