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

Huntersville Health & Rehabilitation Center

13835 Boren Street, Huntersville, NC 28078 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (704) 912-2222 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuse3 actual-harm citations
Insights

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

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0604, F0607) — most recent Apr 2026
  • it has 3 actual-harm citations
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
9735 Kincey Ave · (704) 660-4094 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
9801 Kincey Ave · (704) 947-3220 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
14021 Boren St · (704) 282-8944 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
13924 Professional Center Dr · (704) 535-2260

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.3%15.6%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.3%7.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.0%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.4%5.9%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.9%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened21.2%18.3%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.9%21.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.8%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.4%5.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control35.0%20.7%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.0%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine82.3%78.1%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.9%22.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.7%12.9%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.151.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.961.801.80better

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.

65.5% 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 776 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

65.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
64.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
1.19U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.54hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.46hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.19hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 64.2% 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 310 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 1.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 35% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF65.5%CMS range 62.3–68.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 8.9–12.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge64.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge63.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge70.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified94.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting85.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge95.9%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.4%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.6%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.6%CMS range 4.0–7.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.091.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.76
RN hours/ resident / day
1.20
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.96
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.91
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.52
RN hoursweekends
50.0%
Total nursing turnover
38.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 86.9 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.09 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-12)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-05-07)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2026-04-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with staff, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from staff to resident physical abuse when Nurse Aide #2 hit a severely cognitive impaired resident with an open hand three times during care. Resident #1 did not have the cognitive capacity to express an adverse psychosocial outcome. A reasonable person would have experienced feelings such as fear, anxiety, helplessness, and dehumanization from being abused by their caregiver. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1).Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease. Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was coded with severe cognitive impairment and needed moderate assistance with personal hygiene, toileting hygiene, dressing and transfers. She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and did not have any behaviors during the 7-day look back. Resident #1…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2026-04-23 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with staff, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical restraints when Nurse Aide #2 was witnessed by another staff member (Nurse Aide #1) to hold Resident #1's hands down against her chest to restrict her arm movements during care when the resident became combative. Resident #1 did not have the cognitive capacity to express an adverse psychosocial outcome. A reasonable person would have experienced feelings such as panic, distress, anger, and fear from being physically restrained by their caregiver. This deficient practice affected 1 of 1 resident reviewed for physical restraints (Resident #1). Findings included:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease.Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was coded with severe cognitive impairment and did not have any behaviors during the 7-day look back period. Resident #1 was care planned on 3/2/26 for combative…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2026-04-23 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop 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 and interviews with staff, the facility failed to implement their policy and procedure in the areas of protection, prevention and reporting abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). NA # 2 witnessed NA # 1 strike a cognitively impaired resident (Resident #1) and did not effectively intervene or immediately report to nursing or administration; this resulted in NA # 2 striking the resident two more times. A reasonable person would expect a witness to remove a cognitively impaired, vulnerable resident from an abusive situation and protect them from further abuse. A reasonable person would feel very dehumanized and helpless from repeated physical abuse. Findings included:The facility's abuse policy dated 10/17/23 was reviewed. The policy read all employees are responsible for immediately reporting to the Administrator, or in their absence the Director of Nursing, or their immediate supervisor any and all suspected or witnessed incident of patient abuse. The policy included…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the ability of a resident to self-administer medications kept at bedside for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for self-administration (Resident #46). The findings included: Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of arthritis. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 cognitively intact. Review of Resident #46's medical records revealed no documentation Resident #46 was assessed to safely self-administer medications. A physician order dated 03/17/26 revealed an order for Tylenol 325 milligram (mg) give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. Resident #46 did not have a physician's order for decongestant nasal spray. On 06/08/26 at 2:25 PM Resident #46 was observed to have a bottle of over the counter (OTC) Tylenol 325 milligrams (mg) and a bottle of decongestant nasal spray sitting on her bedside table. Resident #46 stated she had the Tylenol…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-12 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate 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 submit a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation request to North Carolina Medicaid Uniform Screening Tool (NC MUST-an internet-based application utilized to communicate and manage PASRR requests) for a resident diagnosed with a serious mental illness. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for coordination of PASRR assessments (Resident #10).The findings included:A review of Resident #10's medical record revealed that Resident #10 was deemed by the State to be Level I PASSR. The Level I PASSR was dated 8/21/2009 with no expiration date. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia, depression and anxiety.A review of Resident #10's medical record revealed a hospital stay from 10/18/2025 to 10/22/2025. A review of an updated North Carolina Medicaid Long Term Care FL-2 form (FL-2) dated 10/22/2025 and completed by the hospital physician indicated…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-07 · tag F0627 — isolated
    Ensure 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 review, Responsible Party, Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe and orderly discharge when the facility failed to remove a midline catheter (a long peripheral intravenous catheter, typically 6-15 centimeters in length, that is inserted into a large vein in the upper arm or forearm) before discharging a resident home for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #229). The findings included: Resident #229 was admitted to the facility 11/11/24 with diagnoses that included dysphagia and hyponatremia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #229 had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #229's physician orders revealed an order dated 12/10/24 that read in part; midline [catheter] to be placed one time a day for hydration. Resident #229 had a physician's order dated 12/11/24 for an intravenous solution of one liter of normal saline at 75 milliliters (ml) per hour given one time on 12/11/24 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-07 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate 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 complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II for a resident with a level II PASRR that expired prior to admission to the facility. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #43). The findings included: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder. Review of the PASRR level II dated [DATE] revealed it expired on [DATE] prior to Resident #43's admission to the facility [DATE] and a level II PASRR had not been obtained since admission. An interview conducted with the Assistant Discharge Planner [DATE] at 11:24 AM revealed she had been working at the facility for approximately four months. She indicated when a resident was admitted to the facility the PASRR was completed by the hospital prior to admission. The Assistant Discharge Planner stated she used the Medicaid Uniform Screening Tool (MUST) to access the completed PASSR 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a bagged meal or snack for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis (Resident #83). The findings included: Resident #83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stage 5 chronic kidney disease. Resident #83's admission assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact and oriented to person, place, time and situation. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) was in progress and no information was available. A physician's order dated 5/01/25 revealed Resident #83's dialysis treatments were Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 12:25 PM. An interview conducted with Resident #83 on 5/06/25 at 12:30 PM revealed she was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 5/01/25 for short term rehabilitation. She stated during her hospital stay she started dialysis treatments and was continuing treatments at an outpatient dialysis center on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Resident #83 revealed 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow their Hand Hygiene policy when the Treatment Nurse did not perform hand hygiene before each donning of clean gloves while providing wound care to Resident #53. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 4 staff members observed for infection control practices (Treatment Nurse). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy and procedure entitled Hand Hygiene read in part: Hand hygiene continues to be the primary means of preventing the transmission of infection. The following is a list of some situations that require hand hygiene: - When coming on duty. - Before and after assisting a patient with personal care (e.g., oral care, bathing). - Before and after changing a dressing. - After any contact with potentially contaminated materials (used wound/treatment dressings). A wound observation was made on 05/07/25 at 9:54 AM on Resident #53 with the Treatment Nurse. The Treatment Nurse was observed cleaning the bedside table with disinfectant wipe and placed her wound supplies on the table…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when the Wound Nurse failed to don a gown before entering residents' room to provide care for Resident #1 who was under transmission-based precautions. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 2 staff members observed for infection control practices. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) dated 03/26/2024 revealed the EBP will be implemented for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. EBP employs gown and glove use during high resident care activities such as: Dressing Bathing/Showering, Transferring, Changing Linens, Providing Hygiene, Changing briefs or assisting with toileting, Device Care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube and tracheostomy, Wound Care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. On 10/02/24 at 11:28 AM an observation was made of Wound Nurse #1 entering Resident #1's room to provide wound care. Resident #1 was under EBP for 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-01-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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 record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired food items, date open and perishable foods stored in 1 of 1 reach-in cooler and 1 of 1 walk-in freezer and ensure steamer pans were not stacked wet for 1 of 2 kitchen observations. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: The facility's kitchen was toured on 1/22/2024 at 10:20 AM. An observation was conducted of the reach-in cooler and the following was observed: a. A container of vanilla pudding was noted with a creation date of 3/10 (no year). The expiration date was noted to be 3/14 (no year). b. A container of cantaloupe was noted with an expiration date of 1/21/2024. c. A container of tuna salad was noted with an expiration date of 1/21/2024. d. A container of pineapple pieces was noted without a creation date or expiration date. e. A second container of tuna salad was noted without a creation date or expiration date. f. A container of lettuce salad was noted without a creation date or expiration date. g. A container of shredded cheddar cheese…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-01-25 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
    Set 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, staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee failed to maintain implemented and effective procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following a recertification and complaint investigation dated 6/09/22 for one deficiency in the area of dietary services F 812. Also, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee failed to maintain implemented and effective procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the complaint survey date 4/10/23 for one deficiency in the area of accurate medical records F 842. These deficiencies were cited during a recertification and complaint survey dated 1/25/24. The continued failure of the facility during three 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: F 812 Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired food…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-01-25 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
    Ensure 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, a resident interview, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for food preferences (Resident #281). The findings included: Resident #281 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease and lipoprotein deficiency, among others. An admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] (in progress) indicated her cognition was intact, she had clear speech, able to understand and be understood, required set up/clean up assistance with meals and no weight loss/gain. A care plan revised 1/22/24 identified Resident #281 was at risk for nutritional decline related to a recent hospitalization, adjustment to a new environment, and diagnoses. Interventions included encouraging good food intake, recording the percentage of food eaten, and reviewing food preferences with the resident as needed. Food intake records from 1/17/24 -…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-01-25 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard 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 a resident interview, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to accurately document an allergy (Resident #281) and the amount of nutritional supplement provided during medication administration (Resident #2). This failure occurred for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for accuracy of the medical record. The findings included: 1. Resident #281 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 1/16/24. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, and diabetic neuropathy, among others. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] for Resident #281 recorded she had an allergy to the medication Metformin (used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus). The January 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #281 recorded she had an allergy to the medication Metformin. January 2024 Physician (MD) Order Summary recorded a MD order dated 1/17/24 for Metformin HCL (hydrochloride) tablet 500 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.1+0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.0≈ chain avg
Staffing 3 of 51.6+1.4 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.9+1.1 vs chain
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5APPOMATTOX HEALTH & REHABILITATiON CENTERAppomattox, VA 1 of 5Alamance Health Care CenterBurlington, NC 1 of 5Bayside Health & Rehabilitation CenterVirginia Beach, VA 1 of 5Cabarrus Health and Rehabilitation CenterConcord, NC 1 of 5Charlotte Health & Rehabilitation CenterCharlotte, NC 1 of 5Chesapeake Health And Rehabilitation CenterChesapeake, VA 1 of 5Colonial Heights Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterColonial Heights, VA 1 of 5Elkton Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterElkton, MD 1 of 5Greenville Health and Rehabilitation CenterGreenville, NC 1 of 5Guilford Health Care CenterGreensboro, NC 1 of 5Harrisonburg Hlth & Rehab CntrHarrisonburg, VA 1 of 5Largo Nursing And Rehabiliation CenterGlenarden, MD 1 of 5Layhill Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterSilver Spring, MD 1 of 5Lenoir Health and Rehabilitation CenterLenoir, NC 1 of 5Lynchburg Health & Rehabilitation CenterLynchburg, VA 1 of 5Norfolk Health Care CenterNorfolk, VA 1 of 5Oxford Health and Rehabilitation CenterOxford, NC 1 of 5Parham Health Care & Rehab CenterRichmond, VA 1 of 5Salem Health & RehabilitationSalem, VA 1 of 5University Health and Rehabilitation CenterDurham, NC 1 of 5Virginia Beach Healthcare And Rehab CenterVirginia Beach, VA 1 of 5Westport Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterRichmond, VA 1 of 5White Oak Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterHyattsville, MD 1 of 5Williamsport Health And Rehabilitation CenterWilliamsport, MD 2 of 5Adelphi Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterAdelphi, MD 2 of 5Albemarle Health & Rehabilitation CenterCharlottesville, VA 2 of 5Beaufont Health And Rehabilitation CenterRichmond, VA 2 of 5Belaire Health Care CenterGastonia, NC 2 of 5Charlottesville Health & Rehabilitation CenterCharlottesville, VA 2 of 5Cherrydale Health & Rehabilitation CenterArlington, VA 2 of 5Culpeper Health & Rehabilitation CenterCulpeper, VA 2 of 5Fairfax Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterFairfax, VA 2 of 5Glenburnie Rehab & Nursing CenterRichmond, VA 2 of 5Hanover Health And Rehabilitation CenterMechanicsville, VA 2 of 5Lexington Health Care CenterLexington, NC 2 of 5Litchford Falls Health and Rehabilitation CenterRaleigh, NC 2 of 5Pike Creek Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterWilmington, DE 2 of 5Regency Health And Rehabilitation CenterYorktown, VA 2 of 5Shady Grove Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterRockville, MD 2 of 5The Nursing And Rehab Center At Stadium PlaceBaltimore, MD

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
HUNTERSVILLE HOLDINGS I LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 05/28/2021
CHARLES 1994 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
CK 2008 FAMILY TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
DRM SOUTH LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
EDWARD 1998 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
LAUREN 2020 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
LAUREN 2020 LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
LEPS 2003 FAMILY TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
NORMAN 5571 & FAMILY LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
NORMAN 5571 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
NORMAN 5571 LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
RL 2008 FAMILY TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
ROBIN 2008 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
ROBIN 2008 LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
SAUL 2012 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
SPRINGROCK SOUTH LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
SUMMER SOUTH LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/28/2021
GARDIN, WILLIAMIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 09/11/2023
RSBRM SOUTH MANAGER LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 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.

$16.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+7.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 16%Medicare 52%Other / private 32%

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

$490per resident / day
operating cost
$14,902per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$531per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NC

Paying with Medicaid

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

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345570. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next