Wellington Rehabilitation and Healthcare

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

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.

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.

50.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 88 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 44.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 27 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 77.2 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.26 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 2.99 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.06 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-04 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
  Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
  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, Responsible Party (RP) and Physician interviews the facility failed to administer seizure medication to Resident #19 on 10/2/23 after he returned to the facility from the hospital, resulting in 4 missed doses of seizure medication. Resident #19 did not receive Keppra (an anti-seizure medication) beginning on 10/2/23 when he returned to the facility from the hospital through 10/4/23. On 10/4/23 Resident #19 suffered seizures in the facility, requiring readmission to the hospital. On 10/4/23 Resident #19 suffered a tonic/clonic seizure (loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions which can be dangerous and potentially life threatening) lasting about 1 minute in the hospital which required the administration of intravenous (IV) Keppra. This was for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #19) whose medication administration was reviewed. Findings included: Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of stroke (blockage of blood supply to the brain). A review…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to place a resident's call light device within reach to allow for the resident to request assistance as needed for 1 of 1 dependent resident reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #13). Findings included: Resident #13 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (a chronic autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system that leads to disruption of nerve signals traveling to the muscles of the body), and post-polio syndrome (a condition that can develop in people who previously had polio leading to a gradual decline in muscle function). Review of Resident #13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADL). Review of Resident #13's care plan last revised on 8/5/25 revealed a focus of the resident being at risk for falls with interventions including to be…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) status, medication, and falls for 3 of 22 resident MDS assessments reviewed (Resident #43, Resident #4, Resident #53).Findings included: 1. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her active diagnoses included cerebral infarction. Review of Resident #43's PASARR Level II Determination Notification letter dated [DATE] revealed an expiration date of [DATE]. Review of Resident #43's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was coded as not currently considered by the state Level II PASARR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:36 PM the Social Worker stated on [DATE] Resident #43 had a Level II PASARR determination which expired on [DATE]. She was reassessed and currently had a Level II PASARR determination with no…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate 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 resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain further approval and screening through a Level II evaluation process in accordance with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Determination Notification. This was for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #53) reviewed for PASRR.Findings included:Resident #53's Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Determination Notice dated [DATE] revealed Nursing Facility Placement was appropriate for a limited nursing facility stay, lasting no more than thirty (30) calendar days. The PASRR expiration date was [DATE].Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis bipolar affective disorder (a chronic mental health condition characterized by extreme mood swings).Resident #53's current comprehensive care plan revealed a focus area dated as initiated on [DATE] for Level II PASRR. The goal was for Resident #53 to show no change in mental status through the next review. An intervention was…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II (Resident #53 and Resident #43) and hospice (Resident #8) for 3 of 20 comprehensive care plans reviewed.Findings included: 1. Resident #53's Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Determination Notice dated 9/17/24 revealed in part her Level II screening determined Nursing Facility Placement was appropriate. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of progressive neurological (nervous system) condition. Resident #53's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Resident #53's current comprehensive care plan revealed her Level II PASRR status was not reflected in her care plan until a focus area was initiated by 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to accurately reflect the code status (Resident #12), a pressure ulcer (Resident #13) and the discontinuation of bed rails (Resident #7). This was for 3 of 20 comprehensive care plans reviewed. 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease dependent on hemodialysis. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an advance directive physician's order dated [DATE] indicating he was a full code, meaning he wished to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed should his heart stop. Review of a hard copy of Resident #12's advance directive kept in a book at the nurses' station indicated Resident #12 was made a full code on [DATE]. Review of Resident #12's care plan, last revised [DATE] revealed his code status as being Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), meaning he would not want CPR performed should his heart stop. Review of Resident #12's…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  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, staff, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to remove a topical pain patch in accordance with the physician's order. This was for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #82) reviewed for professional standards.Findings included:Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of pain.The nursing admission Data Collection form for Resident #82 dated 9/24/25 at 6:02 PM completed by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #82 was alert and oriented times 4 (to person, place, time and situation).A physician's order for Resident #82 dated 9/26/25 revealed lidocaine (topical pain medication) patch 4 percent (%) apply to shoulders and chest topically one time a day for pain apply 3 patches - one on each shoulder and chest and remove per schedule. There was no physician's order for Resident #82 to self-administer medications.On 9/29/25 at 11:10 AM an observation was conducted in conjunction with an interview with Resident #82. During the observation,…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility applied a resting hand splint (a brace used to keep the hand, wrist, and fingers in a neutral position preventing stiffness and contractures) without a physician's order, therapy instructions or in accordance with a splint wearing schedule. This deficient practice was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for position and mobility (Resident #38).Findings included:Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of right-hand contracture.Resident #38's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was moderately cognitively impaired. She had functional limitation of range of motion on both sides of her upper and lower extremities. She received 2 days of occupational therapy beginning on 9/9/25. She was not in a restorative nursing program. Resident #38 did not receive splint or brace assistance.Resident #38's medical record did not reveal a physician's order for a resting hand splint.Resident…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 observation, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice and infection prevention measures when Unit Manager #2 (UM #2) failed to remove soiled gloves, perform hand hygiene and don clean gloves during tracheostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening in the trachea (windpipe) through the front of the neck to create an artificial airway and assist with breathing) care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for tracheostomy care (Resident #17). Findings included: Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of quadriplegia and tracheostomy status. Resident #17's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. Resident #17 was coded in the MDS as receiving tracheostomy care in the facility. Resident #17's care plan with a revision date of 6/22/25 revealed him to have a tracheostomy. A continuous observation of tracheostomy care was conducted on 10/2/25 starting at 8:14 AM. Unit…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  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, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to attempt alternatives prior to installing side rails, complete a siderail assessment, assess entrapment risk, review the risks and benefits of side rails with the resident and obtain informed consent, complete a care plan for side rail usage and obtain a physician's order prior to siderail use for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #57) reviewed for side rails.Findings included: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (a chronic, progressive neurological disorder that affects movement and other bodily functions). Review of Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #57 was cognitively intact, did not have side rails as a restraint and was independent with bed mobility. Review of Resident #57's care plan last revised 9/8/25 revealed no care plan indicating the use of bilateral quarter length side rails. Review of Resident…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their policies and procedures for hand hygiene when the business office manager failed to perform hand hygiene while passing a meal tray. This was for 1 of 8 staff members observed for hand hygiene practices (Business Office Manager). Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene with a review date of 2/5/21 stated in part: Hand hygiene should be performed after contact with inanimate objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate patient vicinity, and, before initiating a clean procedure. The policy definition of hand hygiene stated: cleaning your hands by using either handwashing (washing with soap and water), antiseptic hand wash, or antiseptic hand rubs (i.e. alcohol-based sanitizer including foam or gel). An observation was started on 9/29/25 at 11:51 AM. The facility Business Office Manager was observed entering a resident's room to deliver the resident's lunch tray. The Business Office Manager set the tray on the resident's overbed tray table next to a…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$15,642 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $15,642 — penalty dated 2024-09-04

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 AVARDIS HEALTH — 38 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.

10 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.

About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $455K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

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

What families pay in NC