Capital Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
3000 Holston Lane, Raleigh, NC 27610 · For profit - Corporation · 125 certified beds · (919) 231-6045 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 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 | 9.2% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.9% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.5% | 21.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 20.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.8% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.4% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.4% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.9% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.2% 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 143 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.0% 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 40 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 52.2%CMS range 43.4–58.9 | 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 8.3–14.3 | 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 | 35.0% | 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 | 45.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 25.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.1% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.5–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 125 beds and averages 100.6 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.08 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.54 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician order for an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication was time limited in duration for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #90).The findings included:Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anxiety disorder.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 was cognitively intact and was coded for use of an antianxiety medication.Resident #90 had an active physician order dated 7/19/25 for lorazepam oral tablet 0.5 milligram (mg). Give 0.5 mg by mouth two times a day for anxiety; give after breakfast AND give 0.5 mg tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety. The order did not have a stop date.The care plan last reviewed on 7/28/25 revealed Resident #90 used anti-anxiety medication and was at risk for adverse side effects with an intervention for the Consulting Pharmacist to review 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 · Dcited before2025-08-07 · 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 observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to consistently complete a thorough weekly pressure ulcer assessment that included the type of injury (pressure versus non pressure), pressure ulcer stage, a description of the pressure ulcer characteristics, presence of pain, and description of dressing or treatment for 1 of 2 residents observed for pressure ulcers (Resident #3). The findings included:Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included functional quadriplegia and cerebral palsy. The Weekly Pressure Ulcer Review assessment dated [DATE], completed by the Wound Treatment Nurse, revealed Resident #3 had one unhealed pressure ulcer to the sacrum, not staged, with measurements of 1 centimeter (cm) x 1 cm x 0.1 cm (length x width x depth). The wound bed was noted to have 100% granulation (new tissue that forms on the wound during healing process) tissue, with no odor. Resident #3 had a physician order in place dated 5/08/25 to apply…
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 · D2025-08-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment for a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication, which is used for medication monitoring of side effects of antipsychotic medications for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #82).The findings included:Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances.The Mental Health and Antipsychotic Review (which included the AIMS assessment) completed on 12/26/24 revealed Resident #82 had no negative findings related to the use of antipsychotic medication and was categorized as low risk for movement disorders.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #82 had severe cognitive impairment and was coded for the use of antipsychotic medication.The care plan last reviewed on 6/27/25 revealed Resident #82 received…
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 before2025-06-25 · 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 resident, staff, family, and physician (MD) interviews, the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner when Resident #3, who was positioned onto her right side at the edge of her bed and was left unattended by MD #1 during wound care. Resident #3 fell from her bed and required transfer to the hospital for medical evaluation. This was for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accidents. Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cerebral infarction (disruption in blood supply to the brain which causes tissue damage). A review of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan revealed a focus area dated as initiated on 3/18/21 of actual fall with risk for further falls related to poor balance and unsteady gait. An intervention was to anticipate Resident #3's needs as much as possible. A review of Resident #3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired. She had no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to revise the care plan in the areas of behaviors (Resident #13) and hospice services (Resident #14) for 2 of 21 residents reviewed for care plan revision. The findings included: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, delusional disorder, and iron deficiency anemia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had adequate vision without corrective lenses, had severe cognitive impairment, and required supervision for eating. Resident #13 was not coded for behaviors. The care plan last revised on 3/20/24 revealed no care plan for Resident #13's behavior related to the ingestion of non-edible substances and to keep bath items out of Resident #13's reach. The nursing progress note dated 4/04/24 at 12:01 am by Nurse #1 revealed Resident #13's vital signs were obtained, and Nurse Practitioner #1 was notified of Resident #13's incident.…
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 · D2024-07-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, Wound Provider interview, Nurse Practitioner interview, and Medical Director interview, the facility failed to obtain a treatment order prior to treating a wound for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for professional standards of practice (Resident #251). The findings included: Review of the hospital medication administration record dated 6/28/24 revealed Resident #251 received honey 80% gel treatment to the right lower extremity prior to discharge to the facility. Review of the hospital discharge summary revealed Resident #251 was discharged to the facility on 6/28/24 with diagnoses which included cellulitis of the right lower extremity. The hospital discharge summary did not include wound treatment orders for the right lower extremity cellulitis. Resident #251 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cellulitis (infection) of the right lower extremity and diabetes. The nursing admission review note completed on 6/28/24 by Nurse #5 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 · Dcited before2024-07-18 · 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, staff interviews, and interview with the Wound Care Physician the facility failed to transcribe Physician treatment orders and failed to implement the Wound Care Doctors orders as ordered for one (Resident #38) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The findings included: Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stroke with hemiplegia, chronic atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and epilepsy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 was cognitively impaired and was receiving treatments for a pressure ulcer. Review of Resident #38's care plan revealed she had a pressure ulcer on her coccyx and was at risk for development of additional pressure ulcers due to decreased ability to re-position and incontinence. bowel/bladder incontinence. Interventions included Apply moisture barrier with each brief change and prn, and administration of treatments as ordered by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-18 · 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 record review, staff interviews, Nurse Practitioner interview, Medical Director interview, and Poison Control interview, the facility failed to provide a hazard free environment to prevent an avoidable accident when a resident with severe cognitive impairment (Resident #13) ingested an unknown amount of nontoxic liquid perineal and skin cleanser that was left within the resident's reach for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents (Resident #13). The findings included: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, delusional disorder, and iron deficiency anemia. Resident #13 had no known drug or food allergies. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had adequate vision without corrective lenses, had severe cognitive impairment, and was not coded for behaviors. Resident #13 had no range of motion limitation for upper or lower extremities, required supervision or cueing 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 · Dcited before2024-07-18 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to document wound treatment orders for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for medical record accuracy (Resident #251). The findings included: Resident #251 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cellulitis (infection) of the right lower extremity. The nursing admission review note completed on 6/28/24 by Nurse #5 revealed Resident #251 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with right lower extremity cellulitis and had two open areas to the right lower leg. The weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] completed by Nurse #5 revealed Resident #251 had an open area to the right lower leg. Nurse #5 noted that treatment was in place for the right lower leg open areas. An attempt to interview Nurse #5 via telephone on 7/17/24 at 9:30 am was unsuccessful. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2024 revealed no documentation that treatments were ordered or completed for Resident #251's right lower extremity wound. Nurse…
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 · D2023-03-09 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer enteral feeding formula at the correct rate as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed for enteral feedings. Findings included: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dysphagia (difficultly swallowing) and gastrostomy (opening of the stomach) for enteral feedings. The revised care plan dated 9/14/2022 indicated Resident #4 required enteral feedings to assist her in maintaining or improving her nutritional status. Interventions included administering enteral feeding formula as ordered by the physician. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 received enteral feedings for nutrition for greater than 51% of total calories. Dietary notes dated 2/9/2023 recorded Resident #4 was receiving an enteral feeding at 40 milliliters (mL) per hour (hr) and increased the enteral feeding to 50 mL/hr due to weight loss. Physician orders…
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 · Bcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately transcribe wound treatment orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident #1).Findings included:Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness and paralysis) following cerebral infarction (stroke) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Resident #1's care plans included: I currently have a pressure ulcer to my sacrum and am at risk for development of additional pressure ulcers due to decreased ability to re-position andbowel/bladder incontinence, and immobility. This was initiated on 4/2/25 and most recently revised on 4/12/25. The Wound Physician assessed Resident #1 weekly; the dates included 5/6/25, 5/13/25, 5/20/25, 5/29/25, 6/5/25, 6/12/25, 6/19/25, 6/26/25, 7/3/25, 7/10/25, 7/17/25, 7/24/25, and 7/31/25. The Dressing Treatment Plan did not change and included: Primary Dressing alginate calcium with silver apply once daily and as needed. The Secondary…
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 · B2024-09-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure the caulking around the base of the toilets (room [ROOM NUMBER], #211, #308, #310, and #408) was adhered and free of black/brown matter. The facility also failed to ensure a baseboard in the bathroom (room [ROOM NUMBER]) was free of black/brown matter for 5 of 9 bathrooms reviewed for clean and homelike living environment. The findings included: a.During a continuous observation and interview with Resident #1 on 9/16/24 from 9:20 AM until 9:23 AM, the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed the caulking around the base of the toilet was detached in some areas with black/brown matter underneath. Also, a baseboard adjacent to the toilet had areas of dried black/brown matter. room [ROOM NUMBER] was occupied by 2 residents, and Resident #1 was able to use the bathroom on their own or with supervision assistance by staff. Resident #1 stated that the bathroom often becomes flooded from the shower on the other side of the wall, which…
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 · B2023-03-09 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide written notice of discharge to the resident and the resident's representative for residents who were transferred to the hospital and notification to the ombudsman (Resident #48) and failed to provide written notice of discharge to the resident or the resident's representatives (Resident # 63 and Resident #30) for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. The findings included: 1. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #48' s records revealed she was sent to the hospital on 2/20/23. Review of Resident #48's medical record revealed no evidence that written notification of discharge was provided to the resident or resident representative for hospitalization on 2/20/23. She returned to the facility on 2/23/23. An interview was conducted with the Admissions Coordinator on 3/8/23 at 11:37 AM who reported the Health Information Management (HIM) Coordinator was responsible…
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 · B2023-03-09 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet 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 review and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint survey of 7/1/21. The deficiency is in the area of Notification of Discharge (623). The continued failure during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F623: Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide written notice of discharge to the resident and the resident's representative for residents who were transferred to the hospital and notification to the ombudsman (Resident #48) and failed to provide written notice of discharge to the resident or the resident's representatives (Resident # 63 and Resident #30) for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. During the recertification and complaint survey of 7/1/21, the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING — 37 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 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIBERTY COMMONS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER OF WAKE COUNTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2005 |
| MCNEILL, JOHN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2005 |
| MCNEILL, RONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2005 |
| JOHN A MCNEILL JR 2012 IRRV TR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| LIBERTY HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| MCNEILL, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| MILLER, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| WILSON, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/18/2011 |
| CALCUTT, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| LIBERTY HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| AYERS, TRACY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| MOORE, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| OLIVER, ANNA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| PURVIS, JENNY | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| LONG TERM CARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345202. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.