Central Continuing Care
1287 Newsome Street, Mount Airy, NC 27030 · For profit - Partnership · 120 certified beds · (336) 786-2133 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- the CMS record shows $5,597 in federal fines (most recent 2023-12-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.3% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.4% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.4% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.8% | 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 | 3.4% | 3.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 33.7% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 46.0% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.0% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.9% | 14.0% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.7% | 22.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.96 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.18 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
40.9% 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 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.0% 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 39 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 40.9%CMS range 29.4–54.4 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 7.8–15.6 | 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 | 59.0% | 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 | 53.9% | 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 | 41.0% | 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 | 95.7% | 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 | 95.8% | 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 | 4.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 3.8–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 120 beds and averages 81.2 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.36 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.80 is at or above 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 3.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.74 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 provide Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF-ABN) prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review (Resident #71).The findings include:Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].A review of the medical record revealed a NOMNC was issued to Resident #71 which explained Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services would end on 7/25/2025. The form was reviewed by Resident #71's Responsible Party (RP) on 7/23/2025. Resident #71 remained in the facility after 7/25/25. A review of the medical record revealed a SNF-ABN was not provided to Resident #71 or their Responsible Party. Resident #71 had 15 Medicare part A days remaining.On 9/10/2025 at 8:47 AM an interview was completed with the Social Service Director confirmed the NOMNC was issued when Resident #71's Medicare Part 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 before2025-09-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 and resident interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from verbal and physical abuse when Family Member #1 pulled Resident #50 by her hair back into her room, which resulted in no physical harm to Resident #50. In addition, Family Member #1 raised her hand and stated to Resident #50 I will slap you out of the chair, this resulted in restricted visitation for the Family Member of Resident #50. This affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #50). Findings included:Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease that makes it hard to breathe), and Parkinson's disease (a movement disorder that affects the nervous system and worsens over time).The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 was cognitively intact and had no behaviors or rejection of care.Review of the initial allegation report submitted 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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement a pressure-relieving chair cushion for 1 of 4 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #30). This resulted in Resident #30 experiencing discomfort while up in her wheelchair and prevented her from remaining in her wheelchair for social activities. The findings included:Resident #30 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pressure ulcers, diabetes, heart failure, and debility.Review of the physician orders dated 7/9/2025 indicated a gel cushion to wheelchair for pressure reduction and to check placement daily. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #30 was cognitively intact. The initial assessment indicated one Stage II pressure ulcer, one Stage III pressure ulcer, and one unstageable, deep tissue injury. Resident #30 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and a pressure reducing device was provided in the chair. Record review of the initial care…
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 · E2024-08-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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 review, and staff interviews the facility failed to post cautionary safety signs that indicated the use of oxygen for 5 of 7 residents reviewed for oxygen use (Resident #47, #30, #48, #19, and #70). The findings included: a. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of respiratory failure. A physician's order dated 7/30/2024 revealed Resident #47 was ordered to wear 2 liters per minute of oxygen continuously. An observation was conducted on 8/4/2024 at 9:56 am. Resident #47 was observed with his eyes closed in bed and oxygen being administered at a rate of 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. There was no oxygen signage outside of Resident #47's room or on the doorframe. An interview was conducted on 8/5/2024 at 3:34 pm with Medication Aide (MA) #1. MA #1 stated when a resident was ordered oxygen, there was an order on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). MA #1 stated the nurses let the Nurse Assistants (NAs) know if a resident was ordered oxygen.…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 baseline care plan that addressed a resident's weight-bearing status and the use of a sling to the right upper extremity for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #47) reviewed for baseline care plan. The findings included: Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a right distal clavicle (collarbone) fracture (break). A review of a baseline care plan dated 7/30/2024 revealed Resident #47 had a fracture and staff were to follow rehabilitation orders and/or recommendations. A review of a physician's order dated 7/30/2024 revealed Resident #47 was to always wear sling on his right upper extremity and was non-weightbearing to his right upper extremity. An interview was conducted on 8/6/2024 at 10:05 am with the Care Plan Nurse. The Care Plan Nurse stated a baseline care plan was completed when a resident was admitted to the facility. The Care Plan Nurse stated it was the responsibility of the hall nurse who admitted 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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide fingernail care for a dependent resident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) (Resident #35). The findings included: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis' which included hemiplegia (inability to move one side of the body). A review of a care plan dated 5/13/2024 revealed Resident #35 had impaired mobility related to left-sided hemiplegia with interventions which included for staff to encourage Resident #35 to participate in activities of daily living (ADL) care as able and to assist him as needed. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 was cognitively intact and was not coded for rejection of care. Resident #35 was coded for impairment on one side of his upper extremities and required moderate assistance with personal hygiene. A review of the Electronic Health Record shower documentation dated 8/3/2024 revealed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · 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
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to secure an indwelling urinary catheter tubing to prevent tension or trauma for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #86). The finding included: Resident #86 was admitted to on 08/02/24 to the facility with diagnoses that included urinary retention. The baseline care plan dated 08/02/24 revealed Resident #86 was alert and oriented to person and to check catheter strap every shift. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment was not yet completed as of 08/07/24. A review of Resident #86's physician orders dated 08/02/24 revealed an order for a urinary catheter to straight drainage due to the diagnosis of urinary retention. There was also an order to check placement of a catheter strap every shift. On 08/04/24 at 9:49 AM an observation was made of Resident #86 lying in bed with an indwelling urinary catheter attached to the left side of the bed frame. When asked the Resident uncovered her left thigh to show there was no stabilizing device present on the catheter tubing to prevent tension 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 · Dcited before2023-12-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident, staff, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse when Resident #1 hit Resident #2 with a tissue box causing a very small cut to his left eyebrow with a bruise because Resident #2 was banging a tissue box on his bedside table. This affected 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. The findings included: Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: restlessness, agitation, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. A review of Resident #1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 was moderately cognitively impaired and had no signs of delirium and no behaviors, rejection of care, or wandering were noted. Review of 24-hour initial report dated 11/10/23 read in part, at 4:05 PM Resident #1 threw a tissue box at Resident #2 causing a laceration and discoloration to…
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 · D2023-08-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 and implement their abuse policy in the area of reporting for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident # 1 and Resident #2) The findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program: Policies and Procedures dated revised 10/24/22 indicated all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of patient property were to be reported immediately to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON). The policy also indicated that any time there was an allegation of staff to resident abuse Adult Protective Services (APS) was to be contacted. Additionally, the policy stated the administrator or his/her designee will report allegations to the Health Care Personnel Registry within the specified timeframes: (a) immediately, but no later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury or (b) not later than 24 hours if the alleged violation involved…
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 · C2025-09-11 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to have the most recent survey results labeled and accessible to residents and the public in the location stated on the signage in the lobby. This deficient practice occurred 4 of 4 days of the survey.The findings included:During an initial tour of the facility on 9/8/2025 at 10:30 AM, a picture frame affixed to the wall in the main lobby contained the following information: State Survey results are in the chapel/activities room. Signage indicating the location of the survey results was not observed in any other area in the facility.An observation on 9/8/2025 at 12:30 PM of the chapel/activity room revealed the following: 2 bookcases observed filled with puzzles, 1 bookcase filled with reading books, the last bookcase had hymnals/ black binders/ 2 faded pink photo albums/ 1 purple/blue colored binder/ 1 red binder. No signage was located on the spines of the binders informing the residents or public of what was inside the binders. There was no other signage in the chapel/ activities room which stated where…
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
$5,597 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $5,597 — penalty dated 2023-12-05
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAYNE, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 50% | since 09/01/1994 |
| PAYNE, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 50% | since 09/01/1994 |
| EPPERSON, CRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/01/2002 |
| PAYNE, KYLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/17/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $540K 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 345410. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.