Piney Grove Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
728 Piney Grove Road, Kernersville, NC 27284 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 92 certified beds · (336) 996-4038 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Oct 2024
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $10,699 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-14)
- nursing-staff turnover (66%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 3 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 improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.2% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 1.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 1.0% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.2% | 21.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.3% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.5% | 14.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.3% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.38 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.58 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
55.4% 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 93 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.5% 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 33 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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 | 55.4%CMS range 46.5–64.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–15.7 | 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 | 48.5% | 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 | 54.5% | 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 | 39.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 2.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.5–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 92 beds and averages 86.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.81 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.89 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-14 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with residents, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and the Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from misappropriation of controlled medications for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident's property (Resident # 17). As a result of not getting her pain medication, Resident #17 had an increase in her pain of a level 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 which was increased from her usual pain level of 0 to 3 when getting her medication as prescribed. Resident #17 described the pain as constant aching and throbbing pain in her right hip and throbbing pain in her mouth. The findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy, last revised on [DATE], revealed in part the facility would do whatever is in its control to prevent misappropriation of resident's property. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included debility, arthritis, and chronic pain.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-14 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with residents, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and the Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to ensure a resident's pain was assessed and that she received her pain medication to treat acute throbbing mouth pain from teeth being extracted and chronic constant aching and throbbing pain in her right hip for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain management (Resident #17). As a result of the resident not getting her pain medication as prescribed, her pain level increased to an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 when her usual pain level was 0 to 3 when taking her pain medication as prescribed three times a day. The findings included: Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included debility, arthritis, and chronic pain. The physician's order dated 10/25/23 revealed Resident #17 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 milligrams (mg) (a type of opioid analgesic consisted of oxycodone/acetaminophen that acted on 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 · E2024-10-14 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the resident's preference of showers for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for choices (Resident #17, Resident #189 and Resident #64). The findings included: 1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included debility, arthritis, and chronic pain. Resident #17's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact and required substantial to maximal assistance with showering and bathing. The assessment also revealed Resident #17 had no rejection of care behaviors and according to the assessment, it was very important to the resident to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. The shower schedule for the middle hall revealed Resident #17 was scheduled for showers on Tuesday and Friday on 1st shift (7:00 AM to 3:00PM). The documentation of showers in the electronic medical record for Resident #17 for 08/13/24 through…
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 · E2024-10-14 · 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 record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to resolve and communicate the facility's efforts to address repeated concerns and/or suggestions voiced by residents during Resident Council meetings for 6 of 10 months reviewed (January 2024, March 2024, April 2024, June 2024, July 2024, and August 2024). Findings included: Review of the Resident Council Minutes for the period 09/25/23 through 09/20/24 revealed the following: a. The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 01/31/24 revealed under New Business there were noted resident concerns about not receiving showers, staff turning off call lights and not providing care, ice not being passed daily, and better customer service. b. The minutes from the Resident Council meeting held on 02/16/24 were not available for review. c. The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 03/22/24 revealed the section for old business noted resident concerns with showers not being given or in a timely manner, staff turning off call lights and not answering them, and better customer service. There was no indication of 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 · E2024-10-14 · tag F0623 — patternProvide 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
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the Regional Ombudsman when residents discharged or transferred from the facility for 6 of 6 months (April 2024, May 2024, June 2024, July 2024, August 2024, and September 2024). Findings included: Review of the facility's Admission/Discharge report for the period 04/01/24 to 09/30/24 revealed there were 149 residents who were discharged home, transferred to the hospital, or transferred to another nursing facility. During an interview on 10/09/24 at 12:03 PM, the Social Worker (SW) revealed since starting her employment in October 2023, she had not sent notifications to the Regional Ombudsman when residents discharged or transferred from the facility and wasn't aware that she needed to do so. During an interview on 10/09/24 at 10:16 AM, the Administrator revealed he had spoken with the SW and she had not been contacting the Regional Ombudsman to notify them of any resident discharges or transfers. The Administrator stated both he and the SW had no excuse as to why notifications were not sent to 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-14 · tag F0660 — patternPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and 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 record review and resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a discharge planning process in place that incorporated the resident in the development of a discharge care plan that addressed the resident's discharge goals and post-discharge needs for residents who wished to discharge to the community for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents #82, #13 and #137). Findings included: 1. Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included gout (type of arthritis that causes severe pain, swelling, redness and tenderness in joints), hypertension, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and osteoarthritis of knee. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #82 had intact cognition with a discharge goal to return to the community. The MDS noted an active discharge plan was in place for Resident #82. The Social Service admission assessment dated [DATE] noted Resident #82's discharge goal was to return to the community. Review 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 · E2024-10-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate Treatment Administration Records (TAR) for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #238). The findings include: a. Review of Resident #238's medical record revealed a physician order dated 02/17/2024 to cleanse sacral pressure ulcer with wound cleanser and pat dry then apply non-adhesive pad then cover with foam dressing every day and as needed. Review of Resident #238's 02/2024 TAR revealed there was no documentation on 02/27/2024 to indicate the treatment was completed as ordered. An interview was conducted with former Wound Nurse #1 on 10/09/2024 at 7:01 AM who was assigned to perform pressure ulcer treatments on 02/27/2024. Wound Nurse #1 explained that she remembered Resident #238 and when she performed the Resident's admission skin assessment on 02/16/2024 the Resident had a stage II pressure ulcer on her sacrum. Wound Nurse #1 reported she worked Monday through Friday, but she was also responsible to take call which meant if she was called into work during the week after her…
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 · E2024-10-14 · 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 observations, record reviews, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures when the Wound Nurse did not follow the procedure for dressing change for a wound (Resident #25). In addition, Nurse Aide (NA) #11 failed to remove soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene after incontinence care and before she touched the resident, bed linens and the bed control (Resident #25), the Wound Nurse did not follow enhanced barrier precautions (EPB) while applying stabilizing devices to indwelling catheters for two residents (Resident #60 and Resident #63), Nurse #9, failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions while administering intravenous antibiotics into a central venous catheter (Resident #139) and NA #1 did not follow EPB when providing catheter care (Resident #63). The deficient practice occurred for 4 of 5 staff observed for infection control practices (Wound Nurse, Nurse Aide (NA) #11, Nurse #9, and NA #1). The findings included: 1. Review of the facility's policy and procedure on clean dressings last revised on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-14 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and the Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to notify the NP and MD that a resident was completely out of her narcotic pain medication resulting in her missing 14 consecutive doses for 4 ½ days for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification (Resident #17). The findings included: Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included debility, arthritis, and chronic pain. The physician's order dated 10/25/23 revealed Resident #17 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 milligrams (mg) (oxycodone with acetaminophen) or Percocet (a type of opioid analgesic consisted of oxycodone/acetaminophen that acted on the central nervous system to relieve pain) by mouth three times a day for pain. The medication was scheduled to be given at 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 8:00 PM. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2024 revealed Resident #17 had not received her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-14 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, residents and staff interviews, the facility failed to invite residents to participate and provide input in care planning for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #82 and #13). Findings included: 1. Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included gout (type of arthritis that causes severe pain, swelling, redness and tenderness in joints), hypertension, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and osteoarthritis of knee. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #82 had intact cognition. Review of Resident #82's electronic medical record revealed no evidence he was invited to attend a care plan meeting to discuss and provide input regarding his plan of care following the completion of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Review of the facility's Care Plan Meeting Schedules for the period August 2024 - October 2024 revealed a care plan meeting with Resident #82 was not listed on the schedules. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident, family member, and staff interviews, the facility failed to clean and trim nails on both hands of a dependent resident and failed to shave chin hairs on a dependent resident for 1 of 3 dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #43). The findings included: Resident #43 was readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, osteoporosis, and dementia. Resident #43's Care Area Assessment for activities of daily living (ADL) dated 07/14/24 revealed she needed assistance from staff with all activities of daily living due to her diagnoses of dementia, hemiplegia following a stroke affecting her left non-dominant side and osteoporosis. Resident #43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was moderately cognitively impaired but was able to make her needs known. The assessment also revealed Resident #43 required substantial to maximal assistance with showering and bathing and required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to apply compression wraps daily per the physician's order for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #57) reviewed for edema (swelling). Findings included: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lymphedema (chronic condition that causes swelling, most often in the arms or legs, due to a buildup of lymph fluid). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 had intact cognition. She required substantial/maximum staff assistance with lower body dressing and received application of nonsurgical dressings other than to feet. It was further noted that Resident #57 had not rejected care during the MDS assessment reference period. An active physician's order dated 08/23/24 for Resident #57 read in part, apply compression garments (wraps) in the morning daily for 8 to 12 hours. Remove at night and elevate legs. Every shift for lymphedema of bilateral lower extremities.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to secure an indwelling urinary catheter tubing to prevent tension or trauma for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #63). The finding include: Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate which can cause urinary obstruction). The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #63's cognition was moderately impaired and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #63's care plan revised 07/10/24 that addressed the use of an indwelling urinary catheter related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. The goal that he would be free of urinary tract infections would be attained by utilizing interventions that include following catheter care policies and procedures and abiding by enhanced barrier precautions. Review of Resident #63's physician order dated 08/20/24 indicated indwelling urinary catheter…
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 · B2026-01-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) units in good condition in 8 of 26 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], Room#109, room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for a comfortable, safe, and homelike environment. The findings included: An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 1/20/26 at 9:50 AM revealed 4 out of 5 slats on the PTAC unit contained a patchy black, irregularly shaped residue that covered 50% of the surface of left side of each slat. room [ROOM NUMBER] was occupied by 2 residents. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 1/20/26 at 9:58 AM revealed 5 out of 5 PTAC unit slats contained a patchy black, raised residue that covered 75% of the entire surface of each slat and the internal surface behind the vent slats. room [ROOM NUMBER] was occupied by 2 residents. On 1/20/26 at 10:15 AM an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]…
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.
- 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
$10,699 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $5,349 — penalty dated 2024-10-14
- $5,350 — penalty dated 2024-10-14
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-11-13 for 6 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE — 40 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 39 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOICE, GALE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/05/2018 |
| JOHNSON, DIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2011 |
| PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2011 |
| STIMPSON, JARED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/03/2025 |
| HILL, RAYMOND | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, STEPHEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| PIERCE, ASHLEY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/03/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345354. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-27, 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.