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

Kenansville Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center

209 Beasley Street, Kenansville, NC 28349 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 92 certified beds · (910) 296-1561 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 immediate-jeopardy citation
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (63%) 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
417 N Main St · (910) 275-0027 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
134 Liberty Sq · (910) 296-0500 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
304 S Main St · (910) 296-0434 · Call to confirm hours
Park
501 S Main St · (910) 296-0369 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 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 improved from 1 to 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.9%15.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.1%7.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.4%5.9%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.8%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened24.5%18.3%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.2%21.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.1%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.7%5.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.1%20.7%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table22.9%14.0%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication3.2%1.4%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine74.6%78.1%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.9%22.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit20.4%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.771.781.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.441.801.80worse

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.

41.9% 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 65 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
67.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.41U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.23hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 67.7% 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 68 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 70% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.9%CMS range 29.1–54.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.0%CMS range 8.0–15.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge67.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge64.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge63.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified96.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting97.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge97.6%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.6%CMS range 5.5–13.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.241.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.38
RN hours/ resident / day
0.71
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.19
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.29
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.26
RN hoursweekends
63.4%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 92 beds and averages 79.9 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.41 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-16)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2024-03-28)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2022-11-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a cognitively impaired resident with a history of putting non-food items in his mouth from placing a plastic sandwich bag in his mouth for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for accidents. In addition, the facility had fall interventions in place that were not effective for a resident with severly impaired cognition and poor impulse control, did not complete a root cause analysis to assist with determining new fall interventions, and did not evaluate the effectiveness of fall interventions for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #501) reviewed for falls. There was a high likelihood of Resident #42 choking on the sandwich bag resulting in serious harm, hospitalization, and/or death. Resident #501 sustained a laceration to his scalp, abrasion to his elbow, and a wound to his ear from a fall. A day later, he sustained a closed fracture of the nasal bone. Immediate Jeopardy began on 11/10/22 when 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 provide visual privacy when a buttock wound dressing was changed in the presence of another resident without the privacy curtain being pulled for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for concerns with privacy (Resident #17). Findings included: Nurse #1 was observed on 6/10/25 at 2:30 PM providing wound care to Resident #17's left buttock wound without pulling the privacy curtain between Resident #17's bed and Resident #17's roommate (Resident #35) closest to the window in the room. Nurse #1 was already at bedside ready to complete wound care and was positioned on Resident #17's left side of the bed facing Resident 17's backside. Resident #17 was positioned with her backside turned away from Resident #35's bed with her blankets pulled down, gown pulled up and incontinence brief straps unfastened pulled down on her backside but covering her front. Resident #35 was seated on a wheelchair next to her bed close to the foot of her bed eating a…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolated
    Provide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure Resident # 9 had transportation arrangements for her podiatry appointments as requested by her husband resulting in Resident #9 missing podiatry appointments for one of one resident reviewed for medically related social services. The findings included: Resident # 9 was admitted into the facility on 7/28/2023 with the diagnoses of diabetes mellites, nontraumatic ischemic infarction of muscle of left lower leg, unspecified atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities, right leg, cellulitis of left lower limb, acquired absence of other left toe(s). A review of her hospital discharge orders dated 7/28/2023 indicated an order for antibiotic ointment to ulcer to left posterior leg covered with a dressing daily. There was no order for follow-up appointments for podiatry noted. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #9 was severely cognitively impaired, had no behaviors, had 1 stage 2 pressure ulcer, and was 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-11-14 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to staff Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for six (6) of the past 38 consecutive days reviewed (10/01/22, 10/02/22, 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22). Findings included: A review of 10/01/22 through 11/07/22 staff assignment sheet was conducted on 11/07/22. The assignment sheets for 10/01/22, 10/02/22, 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22 did not indicate a registered nurse was on duty. The daily staff posting sheets for 10/01/22, 10/02/22, 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22 indicated no data (zero) for the RNs on duty. An interview was conducted with the Scheduler on 11/08/22 at 1:30 PM. The Scheduler explained the staff posting sheets were correct and there was no RN coverage on 10/01/22, 10/02/22, 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22 due to staff shortages. The Scheduler explained if she did not have enough staff to cover the call roster people would be called. The call roster included the treatment nurse (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), 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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-11-14 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor these interventions that the committee put into place following the 3/19/21 recertification and complaint investigation survey and the 8/18/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation survey. This was for a recited deficiency on the current recertification survey in the area of infection control. The continued failure during three federal surveys shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F880: Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to implement a Legionella prevention program. This had the potential to effect 51 residents. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 3/19/21, the facility was cited for failing to implement their procedures for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene. During a focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 8/18/21, 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-11-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to implement a Legionella prevention program. This had the potential to effect 51 residents. Findings included: Review of the Emergency Preparedness and Infection Control Programs revealed the facility did not have a procedure or program for water safety management for Legionella. Review of the facility water safety plan policy dated 01/27/2022 revealed the following: Water Safety Team shall meet regularly to review water safety program including - Review of monitoring logs - Review of any corrective actions - Review validation results - Review if any changes to plan is required. In an interview on 11/10/2022 at 10:45AM, the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) revealed he had not conducted a Legionella risk assessment of the facility water system. MS stated he will only conduct the risk assessment if there was an outbreak of Legionella at the facility. In an interview on 11/10/22 at 10:50 AM, the Administrator revealed the facility had not conducted a risk assessment for Legionella. She believed assessment was optional unless there…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-11-14 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident #42 with a pureed diet as ordered by the physician due to a history of difficulty swallowing when a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was served to the resident by Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and the failed to provide pureed ham of a smooth consistency for 11 of 11 residents on a pureed diet. Findings included: 1. Review of the facility's recipe for Baked Ham included instructions to prepare the ham according to the regular recipe, measure out desired number of servings into the food processor and blend until smooth using milk or broth to thin as needed. An observation occurred on 11/9/22 at 11:40 AM of the lunch meal with the regional dietary manager present. He indicated the foods on the tray line were ready for service. The pureed ham on the tray line had a chunky consistency with visible pieces of ham. The regional dietary manager confirmed it was the pureed ham. During an interview at 11/9/22 at 11:40 AM, the Regional…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-11-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review, failed to date leftover food stored for use in one of one (300 hall) nourishment room refrigerator. This had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: A tour was conducted on 11/7/22 at 10:15 AM of the facility's nourishment room with Dietary Aid #1. The refrigerator revealed a to-go box of food with a resident's name and no date, a plastic lidded container with a resident's name and no date, a plastic to-go container with a resident's name and no date, and a gallon jug of tea with no date. During an interview on 11/7/22 at 10:17 AM, Dietary Aid #1 revealed she checked the refrigerator daily and discards foods with no name or date. She revealed she had checked the refrigerator that morning. During an interview on 11/8/22 at 1:45 PM, the Dietary Manager revealed the dietary aids checked the refrigerators daily and should discard food with no name or date. He indicated he checked the refrigerators most days as well. During an interview on 11/9/22 at 3:25 PM, the Administrator revealed she expected…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address a resident's behavior of putting non-food items in his mouth for 1 of 13 (Resident #42) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Findings included: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia. A physician's order dated 4/28/22 for Resident #42 indicated remove potentially dangerous objects from resident including drinking straws every shift included directions resident puts objects in his mouth and chews on them. Resident #42's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he had severe cognitive impairment. A nursing progress note dated 8/6/22 indicated Resident #42 was found in his room chewing on his bed sheet. A nursing progress note dated 8/9/22 indicated Resident #42 was found chewing on his oxygen tubing several times. A nursing progress note dated 8/28/22 indicated Resident #42 was found in his room with a piece 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2025-06-16 · tag F0628 — widespread
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and Resident Representative and staff interviews the facility failed to notify the resident representative in writing of the reason for the transfer/discharge to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #55). The findings included: Resident #55 was admitted into the facility on 6/7/24. A review of Resident #55's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated that she was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #55's nursing progress notes revealed that she was discharged to the hospital on 6/25/24 and returned to the facility on 6/29/24. She was also discharged to the hospital on 8/18/24 and returned to the facility on 8/28/24. A review of the Resident #55's medical record revealed there was no documentation that a written notice of discharge had been sent to the Resident Representative. A telephone interview with Resident #55's Representative was conducted on 6/10/25 at 11:00 AM and revealed she had not received any written notices including…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-03-28 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure 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 for 2 of 18 resident assessments reviewed (Resident #72 and Resident # 5). The findings included: 1. Resident # 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included diabetes and hypertension. Review of the nurse note dated 12/29/2023 indicated Resident # 72 was discharged home. Review of the discharge MDS dated [DATE] inaccurately coded Resident # 72 was discharged to acute hospital. During the interview on 03/27/2024 at 10:29 AM, Minimum Data set (MDS) nurse reviewed the discharge MDS and confirmed it was inaccurate. The MDS nurse explained it was coded in error as Resident # 72 was discharged home not to the acute hospital. During an interview on 03/27/2024 at 11:30 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that MDS should have been coded accurately reflecting that the resident was discharged to the community not to the acute hospital. The Administrator was interviewed 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • No harm found · B2023-11-02 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the medical records were complete and accurate in the area of wound care for three (Residents #2, #9, & #10) of three sampled residents. The findings included: 1. Resident #2 was most recently admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stage 4 pressure wound sacrum. Record review dated 9/12/23, physician orders directed staff to clean sacrum with wound cleanser/gauze, skin prep periwound, apply silver alginate with santyl ointment, and cover with dry dressing daily on day shift for wound care. Record review of wound care treatments revealed there were no wound care treatment notes or nurse initials documented on Resident #2's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) to indicate the treatment was completed on 10/04/23, 10/12/23, 10/16/23, 10/19/23, 10/23/23, 10/26/23, or 10/27/23. The facility's Treatment Nurse was interviewed on 11/02/23 at 11:10 AM. The Treatment Nurse reported providing treatment as ordered to Resident #2…

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

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to YAD HEALTHCARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 51.7+2.3 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 52.2+2.8 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.7★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
KENANSVILLE OPCO HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2023
ALTER, TZVIIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR99%since 03/01/2023
HULETT, JENNIFERIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 03/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 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.

$4.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+5.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$239K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 85%Medicare 7%Other / private 8%

About 85% 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 $239K 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

$329per resident / day
operating cost
$9,995per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$349per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

What families pay in NC

Paying with Medicaid

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

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

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

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345150. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-16, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

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

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

What to do next