Northampton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
HWY 305 North, Jackson, NC 27845 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 80 certified beds · (252) 534-0131 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.3% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.4% | 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 | 3.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.9% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.9% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.3% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.5% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 5.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.0% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.9% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 29.0% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.22 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
48.5% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 42% 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 | 48.5%CMS range 31.5–63.2 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 7.2–15.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 3.9–14.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 74.1 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.91 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-22 · 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 review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of the use of supplemental oxygen and dialysis (Resident #39), the use of hypoglycemic medication (Resident #9), and hospice services (Resident #29). The deficient practice was for 3 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease with dependence on dialysis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Resident #39 had the following physician orders: 11/20/25 oxygen flow at 3 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula (NC) to keep oxygen saturation greater than 90% every shift for hypoxia. 11/21/25 for dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had severe cognitive impairment and was not coded for the use of supplemental oxygen and dialysis while a resident at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection prevention program policies and procedures when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 failed to apply personal protective equipment (PPE) when activities of daily living (ADL) care was performed for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This deficient practice was for 1 of 3 staff members observed for infection control practices (NA #3).The findings included:The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) last revised April 2023 stated that the IPCP was designated to establish and maintain an effective program that provided a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and attempts to prevent the development and the transmission of diseases and infections. The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy last revised 4/01/23 read in part that EBP was utilized in conjunction with standard precautions when performing high-contact resident care activities and included the use of both gowns and gloves. The policy noted in part that EBP applied to all residents 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 · E2025-01-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to date opened leftover food items in 2 kitchen refrigerators (the walk-in refrigerator and the free-standing refrigerator), failed to remove an expired food item stored for use from the dry goods storage room, and failed to remove a plastic measuring cup from the sugar storage bin located near the tray line. The plastic measuring cup was resting in the sugar which has the potential for cross-contamination. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: During the initial observation of the kitchen on 1/21/25 at 9:36 am with the Dietary Manager the following was observed: a. The walk-in refrigerator, located near the dry goods storage room, was observed to have the following: 1 open plastic bag of shredded lettuce without a date. b. The free-standing refrigerator, located near the tray line, was observed to have an open, large box of grated parmesan cheese without a date. c. The dry goods storage room, located in the kitchen near the walk-in refrigerator, was observed to…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to hold a care plan meeting and invite the resident and the RP to participate in the care planning process for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care planning (Resident #76). The findings included: Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Care Plan General Note dated 8/22/24 by the Social Worker revealed Resident #76 had a care plan meeting held with the Responsible Party (RP) via telephone. Review of Resident #76's electronic medical record revealed no documentation that a care plan meeting was held or that Resident #76 or the RP was invited to participate in a care plan meeting after the 8/22/24 meeting. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #76 had moderate cognitive impairment. A telephone interview was conducted with Resident #76's RP on 1/21/25 at 3:02 pm who revealed he had not been invited to participate in a care plan meeting or…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to revise the care plan in the area of indwelling urinary catheter (Resident #36) and use of side rails (Resident #67) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for care plan revision. The findings included: 1. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 has severe cognitive impairment and was always incontinent of bladder. Review of Resident #36's care plan last reviewed 11/26/24 revealed no care plan for use of an indwelling urinary catheter. Resident #36 had a physician order dated 1/11/25 to place an indwelling urinary catheter until further notice for decreased urine output. The nursing progress note dated 1/11/25 at 2:35 pm by the Nurse Supervisor revealed Resident #36 had an indwelling urinary catheter placed and the resident tolerated the procedure. An observation was conducted on 1/21/25 at 10:37 am of Resident #36 who was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-24 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the management of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #36). The findings included: Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 had severe cognitive impairment and was coded as always incontinent of bladder. Resident #36 had a physician order dated 1/11/25 to place an indwelling urinary catheter until further notice for decreased output. Review of Resident #36's electronic medical record revealed no physician orders regarding what size of catheter, how many cubic centimeters (cc) of fluid to anchor the catheter, the time frame to change the indwelling urinary catheter, and time frame to change the indwelling catheter bag. The nursing progress note dated 1/11/25 at 2:35 pm by the Nurse Supervisor revealed Resident #36 had an…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 review of the facility arbitration agreement and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide an arbitration agreement that explicitly granted the resident or their representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing it. The deficient practice was for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for arbitration (Resident #63, Resident #76, and Resident #33). The findings included: A review of the facility's arbitration agreement titled, Arbitration Agreement, dated 7/15/24 was conducted. The Arbitration Agreement read in part that the agreement may be rescinded by written notice to the facility from the Resident within thirty (30) days of signature. The arbitration agreement did not include the statement that the resident or his or her representative has the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing it. a. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 63's arbitration agreement revealed the resident representative signed the agreement on 10/29/24. b. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 implement its infection prevention and control program when 1 of 1 facility staff (Nurse Aide #1) failed to perform hand hygiene before donning and after removing gloves for 4 of 4 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER]). The facility also failed to implement its Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) policy when 2 of 2 staff (Wound Treatment Nurse, Nurse Aide #2) failed to wear isolation gowns while in a resident's room on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The findings included: The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program policy last updated 4/2023 read in part: The infection Prevent and Control Program of this facility of designated to establish and maintain an effective program that provides a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and attempts to prevent the development and transmission of disease. The Objective was to ensure proper utilization of standard…
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 · C2026-04-22 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post an updated daily nurse staffing sheet for residents and visitors for 1 of 4 days during the survey period (4/19/26).The findings included:On 4/19/26 (Sunday), during the initial tour of the facility at 9:40 AM the daily nurse staffing sheet posted near the facility entrance was dated 4/16/26 (Thursday). The daily nurse staffing sheet was not updated to reflect the current date, census, and staffing information.During an interview on 4/19/26 at 10:15 AM, Nurse #1 stated the Scheduler prepared the daily nurse staffing sheets and placed them in a binder on Fridays at the nurses' station for nurses to update and post on the weekends. Nurse #1 indicated she worked on 4/18/26 (Saturday) and the day of the interview (4/19/26) and had not noticed the daily nurse staffing sheet posted near the facility entrance had not been updated since 4/16/26.During an interview with the Scheduler on 4/19/26 at 2:01 PM, the Scheduler confirmed she completed and posted the daily nurse staffing sheets. The Scheduler…
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 PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE — 40 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 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 39 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LASSITER, BRANDI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/16/2025 |
| TAYLOR, FRANCIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2004 |
| JOHNSON, DIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2011 |
| BOICE, GALE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/05/2018 |
| PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, RAYMOND | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, STEPHEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 345313. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-22, 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.