Lakeside Health & Rehab Center
13825 Hunton Lane, Huntersville, NC 28078 · Government - Federal · 114 certified beds · (704) 897-2700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (77%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.
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 | 15.7% | 15.6% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 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 | 6.4% | 5.9% | 6.5% | typical |
| 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 | 4.5% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.0% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.9% | 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 | 2.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.8% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.6% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 70.3% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.08 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 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.
54.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 167 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.7% 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 112 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 54.9%CMS range 48.0–63.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.2–13.0 | 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 | 52.7% | 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 | 46.4% | 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 | 42.0% | 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 | 96.0% | 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 | 97.4% | 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 | 97.6% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.8–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 114 beds and averages 100.1 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.44 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.93 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 77% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-05-25 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each 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 resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide expedited dental care for a resident with broken dentures for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dental services (Resident #12). As a result of Resident #1 not having her dentures she was unable to chew her physician ordered diet which resulted in decreased intake and weight loss. Findings included: Review of the facilities Dental Services Policy dated 11/28/17 and revised on 8/11/20 revealed the facility will promptly, within 3 days, refer residents with lost or damaged dentures for dental services. If the referral could not be made within 3 days, the facility would document what was done to ensure the resident could still eat an drink adequately while awaiting dental services. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia and seizure disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was cognitively intact and 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 · E2025-12-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to clean a circulatory fan cover in the walk-in refrigerator and prevent condensation from forming and dripping onto stored food, which resulted in water standing on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator. This issue was identified for 1 of 3 refrigerators (walk-in) observed in the kitchen. The deficient practice had the potential to affect food served to some of the 103 residents residing in the facility. The findings included:On 12/8/25 at 9:48 AM, an observation of the walk-in refrigerator was conducted with the Dietary Manager. The circulatory fan cover contained a thick build-up of gray/brown debris that was crumbly to touch and covered the entire fan cover. Condensation droplets were observed on the bottom of the circulatory fan and drops of condensation had fallen onto a covered container of sliced tomatoes stored directly under the circulatory fan. Additionally, standing water, brown in color, was present on the floor beneath the fan.On 12/8/25 at 9:54 AM the Dietary Manager stated she was not aware of the debris 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 · D2025-12-11 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to maintain a clean shower room for 2 of 3 shower rooms observed. The facility also failed to maintain a wheelchair in good repair for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for mobility devices (Resident #99). The findings included: 1.a. An observation conducted on 12/10/25 at 10:14 AM of the 100-hall shower room with the Environmental Service Manager revealed a black/gray substance covering the tile floor of the resident shower stall. The black/gray substance covered the surface area in the middle of the shower stall near the shower drain and extended up the right side of the shower wall leading to the shower control knobs. The black/gray substance was also observed in the cracks of the shower tile lining the shower stall. b. An observation and interview conducted on 12/10/25 at 10:25 AM of the 300-hall shower room with the Environmental Service Manager revealed a black/gray substance lining the cracks of the shower stall and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-11 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete a comprehensive assessment in the area of diagnoses for 1 of 22 resident assessments reviewed (Resident #10). The findings included:Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #10's diagnoses included congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm), and hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure and stage 5 chronic kidney disease. A review of Resident #10's physician's orders revealed the following orders dated 11/18 25: - Midodrine (a medication used to treat low blood pressure) 5 mg by mouth three times daily.- Metoprolol (a beta blocker medication that treats congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation) 25 mg by mouth daily. A care plan was initiated 11/18/25 for cardiovascular risk due to diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF) and the use of oxygen. The stated goal was Resident #10 would not exhibit respiratory distress…
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 before2025-12-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to store ammonium lactate lotion (prescription-strength lotion), antifungal powder, and betadine solution (topical antiseptic solution) in a locked cart. These items were found unsecured on a resident's bedside table. This occurred for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication storage (Resident #64). Additionally, the facility failed to date one opened bottle of Latanoprost after it was opened and failed to store one bottle of Latanoprost in accordance with manufacturer's storage guidelines for 1 of 5 medication carts (600 Hall). The findings included: 1. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and hidradenitis suppurativa (skin condition that causes chronic rashes and infections). Resident #64's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] coded Resident #64 with severe cognitive impairment. The MDS did not code the resident for ski problems or rashes. Resident #64's physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-27 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observation, record review, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents could access the light switch located behind the bed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #2). Findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed she had stayed in room [ROOM NUMBER] since 08/16/23. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] coded Resident #2 with a moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated walking between locations inside the room for more than 10 feet did not occur for Resident #2 during the assessment period. During an observation conducted on 09/23/24 at 3:44 PM, the switch cord for the light fixture on the wall behind Resident #2's bed was approximately 5 feet from the floor and 6-7 feet from the bed. The switch cord was approximately 4 inches in length. Resident #2 was unable to reach the switch cord from the bed if needed. An interview was conducted with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to follow a physician order to apply a splinting device for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for range of motion. The findings included: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included contracture to the left hand. Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated recommendations that stated palm guard to left hand 8 hours to facilitate contracture management. On 09/25/2024 at 10:58 AM, an interview with the Director of Rehabilitation revealed on 11/2/2023 Occupational Therapy educated nursing how to don and doff the palm guard to the left hand of Resident #14. A physician order dated 04/04/2024 stated a palm guard should be applied to Resident #14's left hand every day for 8 hours as tolerated. A care plan dated 06/19/2024 revealed Resident #14 had limited physical mobility related to contracture, left-side hemiplegia, and history of stroke. The approaches included first shift…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-27 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 check a finger-stick blood sugar (FSBS) for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #311). The findings included: Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #311 had an order for Metformin (anti-diabetic medication) 500 milligrams (mg) twice a day. There were no orders for finger-stick blood sugar (FSBS) checks. Resident #311 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses which included surgical repair of right hip fracture, diabetes, and asthma. Documentation on the care plan initiated 2/21/2024 revealed Resident #311 had diabetes mellitus with interventions to assess, document, and report to physician signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) such as sweating, tremors, increased heart rate, pallor, nervousness, confusion, slurred speech, lack of coordination, and staggered gait. A review of the facility admission orders dated 2/21/2024 revealed Resident #311 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-27 · 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, staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to date a bottle of eye medication after it was opened and failed to discard 2 bottle of expired eye medications from the medication cart as specified by manufacturer's guidelines for 2 of 5 medication carts observed during medication storage checks (100 hall and 700 hall medication carts). The findings included: a. The manufacturer's package inserts for Latanoprost eye drops revealed an unopened bottle should be stored under refrigeration between the temperature of 36° to 46° Fahrenheit (F) and protected from light. Once it was opened, Latanoprost could be stored at room temperature up to 77° F for up to six weeks. A medication storage audit was conducted on 09/24/24 at 2:46 PM for the 100 hall medication cart in the presence of Nurse #2. One opened bottle of Latanoprost 0.005% eye drops without an opened date was found in the medication cart at room temperature and available for use. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 09/24/24 at 2:47 PM. She acknowledged that the bottle of Latanoprost eye…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-08 · 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 record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to treat a resident in a dignified manner by not providing incontinent care when requested for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #1). The Findings included: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of hemiplegia and seizure disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. No refusal of care was noted during the assessment reference period. Resident #1 was interviewed in his room on 08/08/23 at 10:30 AM. During the interview he stated he often had to wait 40 minutes or longer on staff to answer his call light when he needed to be changed. Resident #1 stated he had just soiled his brief 5 minutes prior to the surveyor speaking with him and proceeded to press his call light to request assistance from staff. The call light was observed…
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 · D2023-05-25 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the regulatory timeframe as specified in the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual for 3 of 21 residents reviewed (Resident #20, Resident #21, and Resident #60). The findings include: 1. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #20's most recent quarterly MDS assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/24/23 revealed it was transmitted to CMS on 5/18/23. 2. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #21's most recent quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 1/13/23 showed it was transmitted to CMS on 5/18/23. 3. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #60's significant change assessment with an ARD of 3/31/23 revealed it was transmitted to CMS on 5/18/23. An interview on 5/24/23 at 3:42 PM with the MDS Coordinator revealed all MDS assessments with an ARD of 12/1/22 or later had been…
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 · D2023-05-25 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, resident, staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to apply compression stockings as ordered by the Nurse Practitioner for 18 days. The failure occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #125) reviewed for the provision of care according to professional standards. The findings included: Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation, hypertension, protein calorie malnutrition and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #125's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was moderately cognitively impaired with no behaviors and could make all his needs known. The assessment also revealed Resident #125 required extensive to total assistance of one staff member with all activities of daily living except eating. Review of a request for treatment note written by Nurse #1 on 05/08/23 revealed Resident #125 had 2+ pitting edema (occurs when excess fluid builds up in body causing swelling;…
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 · D2023-05-25 · 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, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to comply with oxygen orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #43). The findings included: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia, chronic respiratory failure, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 was not cognitively intact and was coded as receiving oxygen (O2). Review of revised care plan dated 01/13/23 revealed a care plan for oxygen where Resident #43 will not have signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Interventions included administer oxygen per orders, assess for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and reports to physician as needed, monitor oxygen as ordered and/or as needed, monitor tops of ears for redness or breakdown due to use of oxygen tubing, head of bed at least 30 degrees to assist with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-25 · tag F0914 — isolatedProvide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is 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, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a privacy curtain for 1 of 10 rooms on the 300-hall reviewed for privacy. The findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 was cognitively intact for decision making. An observation and interview conducted with Resident #31 on 5/22/23 at 4:20 PM revealed Resident #31 was sitting in her wheelchair in front of the television in her pajamas. Resident #31 indicated she had not had a privacy curtain in a few months and when staff assisted her staff would close the roommates' curtain for privacy. Resident #31 stated she had told nursing staff prior and would prefer to have her own privacy curtain. The interview revealed the resident did not recall what staff member she had told and had not been exposed while getting care due to the lack of having a privacy curtain. An interview and observation conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2023-05-25 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis while a resident (Resident #17) and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge status (resident #70). The findings included: 1. Resident #17 was readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis 3 days a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was marked for ESRD, but no was marked for dialysis while a resident. On the previous Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], ESRD was marked as well as dialysis while a resident. During an interview with Resident #17 on 5/23/23 at 2:02 PM he revealed he attended dialysis and had no issues. He stated he attended dialysis 3 days a week. In an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 5/24/23 at 3:42 PM she reported dialysis while a resident should have been coded on the 4/27/23 MDS…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| OHL ASSET (NC) HUNTERSVILLE SNF, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/24/2026 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2022 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| HOPPING, DARIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| JONES, JOYCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/16/2025 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/24/2026 |
| SHG BOA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/24/2026 |
| SHG MT, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/24/2026 |
| TCF NATIONAL BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| WALKER & ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/18/2023 |
| PATEL, SANDEEP | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/08/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 345541. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.