Autumn Care of Drexel
307 Oakland Avenue, Morganton, NC 28655 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (828) 433-6180 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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 a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $27,872 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-24)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 6.2% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 7.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.4% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 5.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.0% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.9% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.0% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.7% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.2% | 22.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.2% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
‡ 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.
47.3% 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 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 47.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 44 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 47.3%CMS range 36.4–60.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.6–15.1 | 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 | 47.7% | 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 | 40.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 29.6% | 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 | 93.1% | 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 | 1.7% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.2–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 100 beds and averages 92.7 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above 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 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-04-24 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure 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, staff, Medical Director and Consulting Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when Nurse #1 administered 30 units of insulin glargine (a long acting insulin that lasts for 24 hours and does not have a peak of onset) intended for Resident #31 to Resident #16. Resident #16 did not have a diagnosis of diabetes or a physician's order for insulin. Resident #16 was assessed by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and immediately started on intravenous (IV) dextrose (a solution that contains sugar) fluids for 24 hours. The NP also ordered finger stick blood sugars every hour for 24 hours with instructions to notify the provider if Resident #16's blood sugar was below 90 (Normal range is between 70-99). Resident #16's blood sugar dropped to 61 during the night, Nurse #2 notified the on-call provider and gave Resident #16 eight ounces of orange juice and a snack while she waited for a response from the provider. The on-call provider responded and ordered…
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 · Gcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, Medical Director, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner when staff were assisting a resident (Resident #34) with left side weakness and vascular dementia with incontinent care. The resident was rolled onto her left side then left in her bed unattended with the side rails down. Resident #34 was unable to hold herself up and she fell off the side of the bed onto the floor. The resident sustained a laceration to her nose, bruises to her face, and was transferred to the hospital for treatment. She received medical glue to the laceration on her nose, and a hospital CT (computed tomography) scan revealed the resident had suffered a fractured nose due to the fall. The resident was discharged back to the facility on 4/12/25. Resident #34 stated that this was the worst fall she had suffered and was more painful than the birth of her children. This was reviewed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #34) for the prevention of accidents. Findings…
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 · Gcited before2024-08-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent an accident when staff was assisting a resident with advanced Parkinson's disease (disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement) to the dining room in her wheelchair without the use of foot pedals. The resident was unable to keep her feet up while in her wheelchair without the assistance of her foot pedals which allowed her foot to drop, causing her shoe to fall off and her shoe to become stuck underneath the wheel of the wheelchair. This caused the wheelchair to stop abruptly and the resident to fall forward out of the wheelchair and hit her head on the floor. The resident sustained a large gash above her left eye and was transferred to the hospital for treatment. She received 11 stitches, and a hospital CT (computed tomography) scan revealed the resident had also suffered a small subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space between your brain and the membrane that covers it)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-14 · 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 an individualized comprehensive care plan in the area of anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication use for 1 of 5 residents whose comprehensive care plans were reviewed (Resident #8). The findings included: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia (severe or complete paralysis of one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (a blocked or narrowed blood vessel that cuts off blood flow to a part of the brain) and chronic atrial fibrillation (a sustained irregular heart rhythm). A review of the active medication orders for Resident #8 revealed an order for rivaroxaban (an anticoagulant medication) 20 milligrams (mg) by mouth; take daily with evening meal for history of cerebral infarction. The medication had a start date of 12/30/2025. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #8 dated 04/21/2026 indicated Resident #8 was receiving an anticoagulant. 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-14 · 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 reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their Infection Control policies and procedures for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when the Wound Nurse and Nurse Aide (NA) #1 failed to wear a gown while providing wound care to Resident #12. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with a chronic heel wound with drainage. This deficient practice occurred for 2 of 8 staff observed for infection control practices (Wound Nurse and NA #1).The findings included:Review of the Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy and procedure which is part of the Infection Control policies and procedures last revised on 04/15/26 revealed the following:Policy: Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are intended to prevent transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) via contaminated hands and clothing of healthcare workers to high-risk resident during high contact activities.High risk residents are those with chronic wounds and indwelling devices (such as central lines, urinary catheters, and traches) and for all those colonized or infected with a MDRO…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-24 · 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure ready to use dishware was cleaned and dried before being stored, food was dated/labeled in the walk-in freezer, walk-in cooler, and dry goods storage area. This occurred for 1 of 2 kitchen observations. This had the potential to affect food served and distributed to 88 of 88 residents who received an oral diet. The findings included: The initial tour of the kitchen occurred on 04/21/25 at 9:30 AM with the Dietary Manager. The initial observation of the dishware storage area revealed the following: a. Dishware that was ready for use was put away and stacked wet. -4 out of 4 metal serving bins were stacked flat upside down visibly wet with pooled water on the sides and water pooled around the rim. -22 small plastic bowls stacked right side up. 3 out of 22 bowls were observed with small amount of pooled water in the base of the bowls. -2 of 8 clear small plastic dessert bowls were stacked right side up with small amount of pooled water in base of the bowls. b. Dishware that was ready for use was put away/or…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 observations, record reviews, resident, staff, family, and physician interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was delivered at the prescribed rate (Resident #86). This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care and services. Findings included: Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #86 had diagnoses which included myoneural disorder (a neuromuscular disorder which leads to progressive muscle weakness and paralysis which affects breathing). Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a physician order for Resident #86 dated 04/17/2025 at 10:17 AM for oxygen at 3 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula (NC) continuously to relieve hypoxia. Review of the baseline care plan dated 04/17/2025 revealed Resident #86 was receiving oxygen at 3 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula (NC) continuously to relieve hypoxia. Resident #86's 5-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was in progress and not yet completed. Review of the Brief…
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 · E2024-02-14 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interviews and staff interviews the facility failed to have systems in place for providing evening snacks to residents for 5 of 5 halls. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents requesting an evening snack. The findings included: An interview conducted on 02/13/24 at 6:30 AM with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 revealed she worked second shift and residents during second shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM) had not received a bedtime snack on multiple days because staff were unable to get into the nourishment room on either floor. NA #2 further revealed the nourishment rooms had a code that was not provided to them, and the kitchen was locked. The NA indicated she had reported this to a Nurse on duty over the past few months but could not recall which Nurse. An interview conducted with Nurse #1 on 02/13/24 at 7:20 AM revealed nursing staff were often unable to access the kitchen and nourishment rooms at night to retrieve snacks because the doors had a code that had not been provided to her. The Nurse further revealed she had reported these concerns and was told…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-14 · 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, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure items stored ready for use were labeled and dated and failed to remove expired food items in 1of 1 walk-in cooler and 1 of 2 nourishment rooms (First Floor). These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: a. An observation and interview were conducted on 2/11/23 at 9:15 AM with Dietary [NAME] #1 in the walk-in cooler revealed eleven sandwiches, six grilled cheese sandwiches, tomato soup in a container with saran wrap on top, and four cups of lima beans which were unlabeled and not dated. The Dietary [NAME] believed the sandwiches and grilled cheese sandwiches were made the day prior but was unsure when they had been prepared and needed to be discarded. The Dietary [NAME] was unable to determine when the other items had been prepared. Observations further revealed leftover roasted potatoes with the expiration/discard date of 02/09/23. Dietary [NAME] #1 stated the dietary staff member that puts the food item in the walk in the cooler was responsible for…
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 · D2024-02-14 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, observations, and interviews with residents, staff and the Nurse Practitioner, the facility failed to assess the ability of a resident to self-administer for 1 of 4 residents observed (Resident#88). The findings included: Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of allergies. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #88 was cognitively intact and needed supervision with most activities of daily living. A review of Resident #88's medical record indicated no documentation that Resident #88 was assessed for self-administration of medications. Resident #88 did not have a physician's order for self-administration of medications. A review of Resident #88's order summary for February 2024 indicated an active physician's order for Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Suspension 50 micrograms - two sprays both nostrils in morning for allergies and instructions to shake well. During an initial observation of a medication pass for Resident #88…
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 · D2024-02-14 · 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 ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed for a resident with mental health diagnoses upon admission for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #47). The findings include: Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed a PASRR level I screening had been completed on 08/08/2018. No further PASRR documentation was discovered in Resident #47's medical record. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, and dementia with mood disorder. During an interview on 02/14/24 at 1:20 PM with the Social Worker (SW), she revealed she had been employed as the facility SW for the past 36 years and was responsible for completing PASRR referrals upon resident admission. She revealed she would review a resident's diagnoses once they were admitted to see if they would require a level II PASRR referral to be completed. The SW stated Resident #47 had been admitted from 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 · D2024-02-14 · 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, staff, and Hospice Nurse Aide interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to prevent a resident (Resident #45) from having urinary incontinence through her brief, pants, lift pad and onto her wheelchair pad for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living for dependent residents. The findings included: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia following a stroke, dysphagia, muscle weakness and dementia. Review of Resident #45's care plan dated 12/07/23 revealed a focus area for the resident having an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care deficit due to stroke with left hemiparesis and resident required extensive to total assistance with ADL. Resident #45 was also at risk for further unavoidable declines related to diagnosis of dementia. The interventions included assist with activities of daily living (ADL), dressing, grooming, toileting, promote independence and dignity, and provide…
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 · D2024-02-14 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of 5% or less as evidenced by 2 medication errors out of 32 opportunities resulting in a medication error rate of 6.25% for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #26 and Resident #76) observed during medication administration observation. The findings included: 1. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension (HTN). A Physician order dated 05/13/12 revealed Resident #26 was to receive Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg (milligrams) one tablet by mouth twice a day for hypertension. Instructions on the physician orders read to hold medication for systolic pressure less than 100 or a heart rate less than 60. During medication pass observation 02/14/24 at 8:15 AM Nurse #2 prepared medications for Resident #26. Nurse #2 was observed taking a Metoprolol Tartrate 25mg tablet out of a blister package and placing it in a medicine cup. The label on the blister package included…
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 · D2024-02-14 · 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 record reviews and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint investigation survey that occurred on 07/07/22 and follow-up and complaint investigation survey that occurred on 09/21/22. This was for one deficiency cited in July 2022 in the area of infection control and one deficiency cited in September 2022 in the area of maintain a medication error rate of 5% or less and both were subsequently cited on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 02/14/24. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referred to: F880: Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their hand hygiene/handwashing policy as part of their infection control policy, when…
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 before2024-02-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their hand hygiene/handwashing policy as part of their infection control policy, when the Treatment Nurse did not perform hand hygiene according to the facility's policy and procedure and did not doff her gloves, sanitize her hands, and don clean gloves after cleansing the hip wound and before applying the treatment to the wound for a resident (Resident #55). The Treatment Nurse only doffed her right glove, sanitized her right hand, and donned a clean glove on her right hand after removing the soiled dressing from the resident's hip wound, did not doff her gloves after cleansing the wound, did not sanitize her hands, and did not don clean gloves before proceeding to apply the treatment to the hip wound and covering the wound with a clean border gauze dressing. This occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for wound care. The findings included: The facility's policy entitled Hand Hygiene/Handwashing Policy which is part of their Infection Control Policies and Procedures last revised…
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 · B2026-05-14 · 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 reviews, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to resolve and communicate the facility's efforts to address repeated concerns voiced by residents during Resident Council meetings for twelve of thirteen months reviewed (May 2025, June 2025, July 2025, August 2025, September 2025, October 2025, November 2025, December 2025, January 2026, March 2026, April 2026, and May 2026).The findings included:Review of the Resident Council Meeting minutes for the period May 2025 through May 2026 revealed the following:The Resident Council Meeting minutes dated 05/06/25 revealed the Old Business section noted no concerns. Under the New Business section there were noted concerns from residents regarding staff being slow answering call lights on the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on the 200 hall. A grievance form was not attached to the minutes. There were 15 residents in attendance including Resident #4 who was the president of the resident council and Residents #39, #46, #80 and #89.The Resident Council Meeting minutes dated 06/04/25 revealed the Old Business section…
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 · C2025-04-24 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 maintain daily posted staffing sheets for 134 of 385 days (9/21/2024-12/31/2024, 1/4/2025, 1/5/2025, 1/11/2025, 1/12/2025, 1/18/2025, 1/19/2025, 1/25/2025, 1/26/2025, 2/1/2025, 2/2/2025, 2/8/2025, 2/9/2025, 2/15/2025, 2/16/2025, 2/22/2025, 2/23/2025, 3/1/2025, 3/2/2025, 3/8/2025, 3/9/2025, 3/15/2025, 3/16/2025, 3/22/2025, 3/23,2025, 3/29/205, 3/30/2025, 4/5/2025, 4/6/2025, 4/12/2025, 4/13/2025, 4/19/2025, 4/20/2025) reviewed for daily posted staffing information. The findings included: Review of the daily posted staffing sheets for September 2024 revealed no information was available for the days of 9/21/2024- 9/30/2025 Review of the daily posted staffing sheets for October 2024 revealed no information was available for the days of 10/1/2024- 10/31/2024. Review of the daily posted staffing sheets for November 2024 revealed no information was available for the days of 11/1/2024- 11/30/2024. Review of the daily posted staffing sheets for December 2024 revealed no information was available for the days of 12/1/2024-…
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
$27,872 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-04-24
- $10,527 — penalty dated 2024-08-16
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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHG AUTUMN, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2016 |
| WWBV HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/30/2019 |
| LOWMAN, TERESA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/27/2023 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $1.1M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345222. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, 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.