King Health and Rehabilitation Center
115 White Road, King, NC 27021 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 96 certified beds · (336) 983-6505 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Feb 2024
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 1 to 2 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 | 6.3% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 34.6% | 5.9% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger 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 | 5.0% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.3% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.8% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.4% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.8% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.0% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.50 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
39.8% 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 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.0% 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 50 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 39.8%CMS range 28.9–53.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 7.2–14.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 52.0% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 40.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 94.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.0% | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 4.4–14.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 96 beds and averages 90.7 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.91 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.08 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their policies and procedures for hand hygiene when NA #1 failed to perform hand hygiene after handling dirty linens and NA #2 failed to perform hand hygiene while handling residents water cups and passing fresh ice and water. This was for 2 of 5 staff members observed for infection control practices (NA #1 and NA #2).Findings included:A review of the facility policy titled Hand Washing Requirements with effective date of 2/6/20 stated in part: Hand hygiene should be performed after handling soiled equipment or utensils, after removing gloves or aprons, and after any contact with potentially contaminated objects. There was no mention of how to handle soiled linens in the policy.a. A continuous observation was completed on 6/21/26 from 11:33AM to 11:40AM. NA #1 came out of a resident's room and removed her gloves and threw them in the trash bin in the hallway. She did not perform hand hygiene, and a wall mounted hand sanitizer dispenser was observed nearby on the wall in the hallway. NA #1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment clean and in a sanitary condition to prevent cross contamination by failing to clean under the shelf of 1 of 1 steam tables observed. This practice had the potential to affect residents. The findings included: A review of the Live Well Healthcare Solutions Food Service Closing Checklist read as: All plate warmers, pellet warmers, tray racks and steam tables cleaned and turned off. During the kitchen observation on 04/15/25 at 3:09 PM the steam table was observed. The 5-foot steamtable shelf was observed with dark brown dried food debris. On 4/16/25 at 10:18 AM the 5-foot steamtable shelf was observed with dark brown dried food debris and was sticky to touch. In an interview on 4/16/25 at 10:20 AM the Corporate Dietary Supervisor stated staff should clean the steamtable shelf. In an interview on 4/16/25 at 12:10 PM the Administrator stated the kitchen staff would scrub the steamtable shelf clean. He reported they would add the shelf to the daily sanitation checklist and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with a newly identified serious mental illness for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR (Resident #55). Findings included: Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Level I PASRR determination notification letter dated 3/9/20 indicated No further PASRR screening is required unless a significant change occurs with the individual's status which suggest a diagnosis of mental illness or mental retardation or, if present, suggests a change in treatment needs for those conditions. A review of Resident #55's medical record indicated on 6/25/24 the diagnosis of bipolar disorder was added and on 12/24/24 the diagnosis of major depressive and generalized anxiety disorders was added. There was no evidence indicating a Level II PASRR referral had been completed for Resident #55 after the new diagnoses of serious mental illnesses had been identified. An interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan from 12/27/24 through 3/13/25 for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #37). The facility also failed to update the care plan to reflect the change in the dialysis schedule for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident #48) and failed to update the care plan to reflect the change in dietary status for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for tube feeding (Resident #79). The findings included: Resident #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. She was hospitalized from [DATE] through12/4/24 and 3/11/25 through 3/13/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was cognitively intact and was coded as frequently incontinent of bladder. The Admission/readmission Nursing Collection Tool dated 12/4/24 and completed by Nurse #1 revealed that Resident #37 returned to the facility with an indwelling…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the management of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #37). The findings included: Resident #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. She was hospitalized from [DATE] through 12/4/24 and 3/11/25 through 3/13/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was cognitively intact and was coded as frequently incontinent of bladder. The care plan for Resident #37 was created on 12/4/24 and resolved on 12/27/24 revealed that the resident requires a urinary catheter. Interventions included: maintain catheter anchor, maintain catheter privacy bag, observe for signs and symptoms of infection such as dark or cloudy urine or blockage and notify md as indicated, and provide catheter care each shift. The Admission/readmission Nursing Collection Tool dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 label a new tube feeding formula bottle when it was hung for 1 of 2 residents with a feeding tube (Resident #245). The findings included: Resident #245 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included failure to thrive, dysphagia, and gastrostomy status (surgical procedure for inserting a tube through the abdomen wall and into the stomach. The tube is used for feeding or drainage). Gastrostomy, feeding tube, and enteral tube feeding are interchangeable descriptions. Review of Resident #245's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact and was dependent on staff with most activities of daily living (ADL). Resident #245 received all nutrition and hydration through the feeding tube. Review of Resident #245's care plan dated 4/3/25 revealed she was at risk for complications related to the need for a feeding tube. Interventions included: administer tube feedings and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a staff member followed facility policy to sign off a controlled medication immediately after administering on the controlled medication count sheet. This occurred for 1 of 4 staff observed during medication administration (Nurse #1). The findings included: Review of the facility policy entitled: Pharmacy Preparation and General Guidelines: IIA6 -Controlled Substances Policy read in part: When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse immediately enters the following information on the accountability record and the medication administration record (MAR): 1) Date and time of administration 2) Amount administered 3) Remaining quantity 4) Initials of the nurse administering the dose, completed after the medication is actually administered. During an observation of medication pass on 4/15/25 at 8:40 AM, Nurse #1 was observed administering one controlled medication to Resident #57: Oxycodone 10mg - Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain. Nurse #1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired medications 2 of 3 medication carts (D Hall Medication Cart and E Hall Medication Cart) reviewed for medication storage. The findings included: a. An observation of the D Hall medication cart with Medication Aide #1 on 04/16/25 3:55 PM revealed an opened box of Bisacodyl Suppositories (medication used to cause a bowel movement) with an expiration date of 3/31/25. An interview with Medication Aide #1 on 4/16/25 at 4:01 PM revealed she thought the nurses were responsible for checking the medication carts for expired medications. b. An observation of the E Hall medication cart with Nurse #2 on 4/16/25 at 4:06 PM revealed: an opened bottle of CoQ10 (a dietary supplement used in some people with certain conditions)100 with an expiration date of 2/2025 and an opened bottle of Antacid Antigas liquid (medication used to help sooth or relieve heartburn, acid indigestion and sour stomach) with an expiration date of 2/2025. An interview with Nurse #2 on 4/16/25 at 4:09 PM revealed the nurse assigned to 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 · D2024-02-29 · 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 reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the rights of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) to be free from misappropriation of a narcotic medication (Oxycodone) prescribed to treat pain. Findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses which included: surgical aftercare following surgery on the nervous system, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was cognitively intact and received opioid medication. Review of Resident #2's physician cumulative orders included an order dated 2/2/24 for Oxycodone hydrochloride, immediate release 5 milligrams (mg), one tablet every four hours as needed for pain for seven days (stop date 2/9/24). On 2/29/24 the Administrator was away from the facility and unavailable for interview. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/29/24 at 3:00 p.m.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to secure medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #44) observed with medications at bedside. Findings Included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included, in part, dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety and major depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 had mild cognitive impairment. A review of the medical record revealed there was no order for Resident #44 to self-administer medication. An observation and interview with Resident #44 were conducted on 01/21/24 at 12:13 PM. The Resident was alert and sitting up in bed. A medication cup that contained eight pills was clearly visible on the overbed table next to the Resident's bed. There were four white pills. two blue pills, and two pink pills in the cup. She revealed the nurse often leaves her pills for her to take when she is ready. She further revealed she…
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 · D2024-01-24 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet 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 observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification survey completed on 9/2/22. This was for 1 deficiency that was cited in the area of Label and Medication Storage (F761) and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 1/24/24. The QAA committee additionally failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put in place following the onsite revisit following the recertification on 10/19/22. This was evident for 1 deficiency in the area of Label and Medication Storage (F761) originally cited on the recertification and complaint survey on 9/2/22 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 1/24/24. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: This citation is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFEWORKS REHAB — 64 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 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| KING HOLDINGS I LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| BRIDGEWATER NC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| HL FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| HSHC 2024 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| IB MIMI 2022 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| IB MIMI 2022 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| JK 2022 GRANTOR FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| MILANO FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| ML MILANO 2022 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| ML MILANO 2022 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| TJ FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| TOL OPCO INVESTCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| UH CAROLINA SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| UNIVERSAL OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| WILL FAMILY 2016 TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2024 |
| HORNE, JERRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| SHAW, VERA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 06/01/2024 |
| SHAYO, JULIUS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 06/01/2024 |
| MAHER, CINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2024 |
| VAN HORN, JILL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/19/2026 |
| BURTON, NOAH | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| ELLENBOGEN, MOSS | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| WEISS, HILLEL | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| 115 WHITE ROAD LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| ACS PRO GLOBAL SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| CYOP CYBER SECURITY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| DIGACORE CONSULTING | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| LIVE WELL PLUS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| MEDICAL FACILITIES OF AMERICA ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| MFA CLINICAL CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| MFA HERITAGE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| MOZART HOLDINGS, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| RYTES COMPANY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| TURNING POINT CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| TACKETT, JONATHAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/08/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 36 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.
27 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 345449. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-24, 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.