The Shannon Gray Rehabilitation & Recovery Center
2005 Shannon Gray Court, Jamestown, NC 27282 · For profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (336) 307-4729 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) 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 | 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 4 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 | 28.5% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 7.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.0% | 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 | 1.7% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.0% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.7% | 21.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.6% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.1% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.4% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.2% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.77 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 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.
49.4% 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 100 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.4% 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 45 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 49.4%CMS range 39.7–59.4 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 8.2–15.6 | 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 | 84.4% | 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 | 68.9% | 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 | 80.0% | 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 | 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 | 98.2% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.9% | 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 | 1.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.6–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 150 beds and averages 101.0 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 49 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.29 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired medications stored in 1 of 3 medication rooms and 1 of 6 medication carts reviewed for medication storage (Over the Counter (OTC) Medication Storage Room and Medication Cart for 800 hall).The findings included:a. An observation of the Over the Counter Medication Storage Room was conducted on 6/24/2026 at 9:33 AM in the presence of the Supply Coordinator. The observation revealed the following expired medications:-Two bottles of vitamin D-3 10 micrograms (mcg) film-coated tablets (a dietary supplement medication) with an expiration date of 9/2025. Both bottles were opened and observed without labels indicating their opening dates. One bottle contained 65 tablets, and the second bottle contained 34 tablets. The Supply Coordinator confirmed the expiration date by reading aloud the date printed on the bottles and confirmed the bottles were opened and undated.-One tube of triple antibiotic ointment, 0.5 ounce, with an expiration date of 10/2025. The Supply Coordinator confirmed the expiration date by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · 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, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide a resident with dignity and respect when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 confronted Resident #77 about reporting her and making false accusations to management. Resident #77 stated this made her feel fearful and treated unfairly. The facility also failed to provide dignity and respect to Resident #35 when NA #2 spoke smack and not very nice to the resident. Resident #35 stated this made him feel frustrated. This occurred for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #77 and Resident #35). The findings included:Resident #77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of lumbar spina bifida without hydrocephalus (a birth defect where the bones in the lower back do not fully close leaving a gap without fluid on the brain). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #77 was cognitively intact and required partial/moderate assistance with bathing and was dependent on toileting. There were no behaviors…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-26 · 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, staff and Physician interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement their infection control policy and procedure, when a Nurse Aide (NA) failed to perform hand hygiene after the completion of catheter care for Resident #36 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for an indwelling catheter. This deficiency occurred for 1 of 4 staff members reviewed for infection control practices (NA #4). The findings included:A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Infection Control in Long Term Care (LTC) Policy dated April 2026 read in part:Use a piece of personal protective equipment one-time-then throw it away.Change gloves when they are soiled, and when moving from a contaminated to clean area of the body.A review of facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) dated April 2024 read in part: The hand hygiene procedures were to be followed by staff involved in direct resident contactReview of the Hand Hygiene Policy (no date), staff were required to execute hand hygiene when the following tasks are performed:After handling…
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 · D2025-11-19 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility record review, hospital emergency department record review, and Resident, Responsible Party, staff, and Medical Director Interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the medications ordered for her by the physician at discharge from the facility. At the time of discharge on [DATE] medications belonging to another resident were inadvertently provided to Resident #1. On 10/21/25 the Responsible Party looked at the medication packaging and realized the medications were prescribed for another resident and she was taken to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. The ED Provider Note stated Resident #1 had no complaints, but the RP stated she was shaky over the last few days. The ED Provide Note further stated Resident #1 looked good clinically with normal laboratory results and the results of the electrocardiogram completed that day were at her baseline. No treatment or interventions were provided and the ED provider indicated he did not see any evidence of a major medication…
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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 staff and Ombudsman interviews, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman, the residents and/or the resident representatives in writing of a resident transfer for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #88 and Resident #81). The findings included: 1. Resident #88 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a reentry date of 1/29/25. The nursing progress note dated 1/28/2025 at 2:30 PM revealed Resident #88 was transferred to the hospital for evaluation. Resident #88 was discharged from the facility on 1/28/25 and returned to the facility on 1/29/25. A telephone interview was conducted on 4/2/25 at 1:07 PM with the Ombudsman who revealed she had not received written notification of hospital transfers since November of 2024. Multiple attempts were made to interview the responsbile party however attempts were not successful. An interview was conducted on 4/2/25 at 2:45 PM with the Administrator. He stated the facility has had administrative staff changes 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 · D2025-04-03 · 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 staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of active diagnoses and urinary catheter for 2 of 20 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy (Residents #39 and #100). The findings included: 1. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder. A record review indicated Resident #39 had an active diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since 8/8/23. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate Resident #39 had an active diagnosis of PTSD in the Psychiatric/Mood Disorder section An interview was conducted on 4/3/25 at 10:25 AM with Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #1. She stated it was an oversight that she did not code an active diagnosis of PTSD in the Psychiatric/Mood Disorder section of Resident #39's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE]. An interview was conducted on 03/06/25 at 10:50 AM with the Administrator. He stated she expected the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-03 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
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, Wound Care Physician, and lab vendor interviews, the facility failed to notify the Wound Care Physician of a positive wound culture lab result when it was reported to the facility which delayed initiating antibiotics for 3 days. This deficient practice affected 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #53). Findings included: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of dementia. The annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] for Resident #53 documented she had an intact cognition, a diagnosis of one stage 3 pressure ulcer, and the pressure ulcer stage 3 was reported not present on admission or reentry. The resident was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. The care plan dated 3/20/25 for Resident #53 had interventions for pressure reduction, nutrition supplementation for wound healing, and pressure ulcer wound care. The resident was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Resident #53 had a Wound Care Physician progress note dated…
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 before2025-04-03 · 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 record review, observation and interviews of the staff and wound care physician, the facility failed to follow their infection control policy for hand hygiene and glove use when the Wound Care Nurse did not perform hygiene and don new gloves after the dirty portion of the pressure ulcer dressing change and before beginning the clean portion of the dressing change (Resident #53). This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 2 staff observed for infection control practices. Findings included: The infection control policy last updated on 10/22/24 documented, in part, 1. Hand hygiene d. Wash hands after removing gloves. 2. Gloves e. Change gloves, as necessary, during the care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination from one body site to another (when moving from a dirty site to a clean one). g. Remove gloves promptly after use, before touching non-contaminated items and environmental surfaces, and before going to another resident and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments. On 04/02/25 at 10:35 am an observation of…
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 · Ecited before2024-01-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 infection control policies and procedures when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and NA #2 failed to remove their masks before exiting a COVID-19 isolation room for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for infection control. (Resident #10 and Resident #24) Findings included: Record review of the Facility Infection Prevention and Control Program Policy last revised 7/13/23 revealed the program outlines strategies designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious agents among healthcare workers, residents, and visitors. The policy further stated transmission-based precautions will be utilized in addition to Standard Precautions when the route of transmission is not completely interrupted using Standard Precautions along. The policy indicated that the three categories of transmission-based precautions were contact, droplet (including enhanced) and airborne and appropriate use of personal protective equipment was required. Review of isolation signage placed on the doorway of residents on droplet contact precautions…
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 · B2026-06-26 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Resident Council meeting minutes, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement an effective process to resolve and communicate the facility's efforts to address repeated concerns by residents related to lack of weekend housekeeping and unlabeled/missing clothing items, for 2 of 5 months of Resident Council meetings (May 2026 and June 2026).The findings included:The Resident Council meeting minutes were reviewed for May 2026. Under the heading Housekeeping/Laundry, the minutes noted residents' concerns of needing more frequent housekeeping visits on the weekend and multiple unlabeled/missing clothing items.The Resident Council meeting minutes were reviewed for June 2026. Under the heading Housekeeping/Laundry, the minutes had no follow up notated. The minutes noted residents' concerns of needing more housekeeping on the weekend for trash removal and multiple unlabeled/missing clothing items.Resident Council was held on 06/24/2026 at 2:00pm. During the Resident Council meeting, the Residents voiced concern that their grievances were not being…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BENNETT, JENNIFER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 24% | since 03/01/2001 |
| BENNETT, RICHARD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/07/2006 |
| BENNETT, SARAH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/01/2010 |
| LAWVER, MELISSA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 24% | since 03/01/2010 |
| BULLINS, VIVKIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/03/2012 |
| CANYON MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/10/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $908K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345552. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-26, 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.