The Laurels of Salisbury
215 Lash Drive, Salisbury, NC 28147 · For profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (704) 637-1182 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Aug 2023
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $45,756 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-08)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 | 17.6% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.7% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 4.7% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.3% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.9% | 21.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.0% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.0% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 65.0% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.8% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
45.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 118 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.0% 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 38 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 0.48 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 79% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 45.3%CMS range 36.8–54.1 | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 6.8–14.2 | 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 | 79.0% | 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 | 73.7% | 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 | 73.7% | 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 | 96.7% | 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 | 92.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.7–10.7 | 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 80 beds and averages 56.2 residents a day — about 70% 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-08-21 · 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 record review and interviews with Resident, Responsible Party, staff, Nurse Practitioner and Police Department Dispatcher, the facility failed to protect the rights of two residents to be free from resident-to-resident physical abuse. Resident #164 was placed on one-to-one observation prior to the first resident to resident physical abuse incident of 4/5/23 due to aggressive behaviors with staff and exit seeking behaviors. On 4/5/23, Resident #164 went onto Resident #165's bed and put his arm around Resident #165's neck in a chokehold when staff intervened. On 5/4/2023 Resident #164 punched Resident #161 in the left eye and right cheek when Resident #161 asked him to leave his room. A reasonable person (Resident #165) would not expect physical abuse from a roommate, and it would likely result in fear, insecurity, and anxiety. Resident #161 had a bruised eye, redness to his cheek and required neurological checks after the incident. Two of three residents reviewed for abuse were affected by this deficient…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-02-08 · 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, observation, and Family Member, staff, and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to prevent 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, from being injured during a transfer from a reclining wheelchair to the bed. Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital after she sustained a right proximal femoral fracture on 1/19/2024 when a staff member transferred her without nonskid footwear causing her feet to slide and become twisted. Resident #1 complained of right hip and knee pain, and she could not straighten her right leg due to pain when the Nurse assessed her. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and right knee contracture. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one staff member for transfers. The Care Plan which was updated on 11/15/2023 indicated staff should encourage Resident #1 to always wear…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-02-08 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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, staff, and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to administer pain medication when a resident complained of right arm and shoulder pain. The delay resulted in the resident experiencing a reported pain of 8 on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being the worst pain) and the inability to sleep while she waited for the medication. This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pain (Resident #3). Findings included: A Discharge Report from the hospital dated 2/6/2024 indicated Resident #3 was alert and oriented to her name, where she was, why she was there, and the date and time. The Discharge Report further indicated Resident #3's discharge pain medications included an order to receive Hydromorphone (opioid pain medication) 4 milligrams every 6 hours as needed for pain until 2/23/2024 and Celecoxib 200 milligrams (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication) every 12 hours. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a fracture and surgical repair of the right…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and resident, staff, Urology Nurse, Nurse Practitioner and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to schedule a urology appointment for follow up of the suprapubic catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted through a small incision in the lower abdomen directly into the bladder to drain urine) placement and infection per the physician order for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for catheters (Resident #7).Findings included:A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was in the hospital from [DATE] through 12/8/2025. During this hospital stay Resident #7 was given an active diagnosis of bilateral hydronephrosis (swelling of both kidneys) status post ureteral stent (a small tube inserted into the ureter to facilitate urine flow from the kidney to the bladder). While in the hospital, Resident #7 had placement of a suprapubic catheter and was discharged with the suprapubic catheter in place. The hospital urology consult documentation dated 12/8/2025 for Resident #7 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to cover facial hair for 2 of 2 dietary staff (Cook #1 and Dietary Aide #1) observed working in food production and failed to have necessary supplies to test the chemical level in the sanitizing sink for 3 of 3 observations. This had the potential to affect food served to all the residents in the facility. The findings included: 1. The kitchen was observed on 1/21/25 at 9:55 AM. [NAME] #1 was observed to be preparing food without a beard cover. [NAME] #1 had facial hair on his chin that measured more than 1 inch in length. The kitchen was observed on 1/23/25 at 11:45 AM. [NAME] #1 was noted to be serving food for residents. [NAME] #1 was asked about the beard cover and he responded that the kitchen was out of beard covers and the Dietary Manager had reordered the beard covers. Dietary Aide #1 was observed preparing resident meal trays 1/23/25 at 11:45 AM. Dietary Aide #1 had facial hair that measured approximately ½ inch on his chin and he did not have a beard cover in place. Dietary Aide #1 reported he…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 complete an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days of admission for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for admission assessments (Resident #16). The findings included: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission MDS was dated 1/22/25 and was listed as in progress. The MDS nurse was interviewed on 1/23/25 at 3:41 PM. The MDS nurse explained she was reviewing assessments for new admissions on 1/22/25 and noticed the admission assessment had not been completed for Resident #16 and she had initiated the assessment. The MDS nurse reported she does not know why the assessment was missed. The Administrator was interviewed on 1/24/25 at 2:23 PM. The Administrator explained the new admissions to the facility were discussed during the morning meeting and checks were completed twice per week to monitor the completion of the MDS assessment. The Administrator reported she was not aware the admission MDS assessment 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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident #163) reviewed for medication errors received medications that were ordered by the physician. Resident #163 received Buspirone (an antianxiety medication) 10 milligrams that was intended for another resident. Medication administration observtions were made during the survey with a sample of residents and no issues were identified. Findings included: Resident #163 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure and respiratory failure. A significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #163 was severely cognitively impaired and did not receive antianxiety medications. Review of Resident #163's Medical Record revealed a Nurse's Progress Note written [DATE] at 3:18 pm by Nurse #1 which stated Nurse Practitioner #1 was notified Resident #163 was administered Buspirone 10 milligrams and orders were received to monitor for 12 hours. 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 · F2023-08-21 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation of the lunch meal tray line observation, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide portions of food per the menu which had the potential to affect all 56 residents in the facility since there were no residents that did not receive a meal tray. Findings included: The menu for Sunday, 8/13/2023, for the lunch meal trays for all regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed Diets consisted of: 3 ounces of Salisbury steak; 4 ounces of potatoes; 4 ounces of spinach; 1 dinner roll; and 1 slice of chocolate pie. During a continuous observation of the lunch meal tray line on 8/13/2023 from 11:34 am until 1:07 pm the [NAME] used: a blue handled scoop (2 ounces) in the mechanical soft meat (the menu called for 3 ounces); a blue handled scoop in the creamed potatoes (the menu called for a 4 ounces); a green handled scoop (3 ounces) in the puree meat (the menu called for 3 ounces); a green handled scoop (3 ounces) in the pureed spinach (the menu called for 4 ounces); and a grey handle slotted spoon (1 cup) in the regular texture spinach (the menu called 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 · Ecited before2023-08-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation of the lunch tray line; staff interviews, and record review the facility staff failed to ensure the thermometer probe was cleaned in between uses to prevent the potential for cross-contamination and failed to cover and date food stored in the walk-in refrigerator. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: During an initial observation of the kitchen on 8/13/2023 at 10:00 am the walk-in refrigerator had a tray of serving bowls with 20 peaches and cream desserts that were not covered and did not have a date on them. The [NAME] stated the staff had put them out in the walk-in refrigerator yesterday and should have covered and dated the desserts. On 8/13/2023 at 11:34 am an observation was conducted of the lunch meal tray line. During the observation the [NAME] used a cloth hand towel, that had dark brown stains, to wipe the thermometer after checking each of the foods in the steam table for temperature. During an interview with the [NAME] on 8/13/2023 at 2:31 pm she stated she had worked at the facility for 1.5 years.…
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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from misappropriation of pain medication for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #211). The findings included: A physician order dated 11/4/2022 ordered to check the fentanyl patch (a narcotic pain medication that delivers medication through the skin over 72 hours for constant pain control) every shift and report placement to the oncoming shift. A review of the medication administration record (MAR) revealed that the fentanyl patch had been documented on by nursing each shift for the period of 11/4/2022 through 11/30/2022. A physician order dated 11/5/2022 ordered fentanyl patch 100 micrograms (mcg) per hour, apply one patch every 72 hours, remove the old patch prior to reapplying. This order was discontinued on 11/11/2022. A nursing note dated 11/10/2022 written by Nurse #1 documented Resident #211's fentanyl patch was on at shift change and hourly checks were conducted until 6:00 PM and the next time Nurse #1 was able to check Resident #211, it was almost 9:00 PM.…
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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement their abuse policy for reporting when the Nurse did not notify the Administrator or Director of Nursing when resident to resident abuse was reported to her by the Nurse Aide. On 4/5/2023 Resident #164 was observed by the Nurse Aide on his knees on Resident #165's bed with his left arm around Resident #165's neck, in a choke hold and his right arm raised like he was going to strike Resident #165 in the face. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. Findings included: The facility's Abuse Prohibition Policy which was last revised on 9/9/2022 stated the staff will report any allegations or suspicions of abuse to the Administrator and Director of Nursing immediately and the Administrator or designee will notify the State agency per state guidelines. Resident #165 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of traumatic brain injury due to a fall. An admission Minimum Data Set…
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 · D2023-08-21 · 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, vascular wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Physician interviews, the facility failed to clarify and document surgical wound care and wound vac (a device used to remove pressure and fluids from a wound) orders for 1 of 1residents reviewed for surgical wound care (Resident #217). Findings included: Resident #217 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD), total occlusion of lower leg arteries, total occlusion of arteries of the lower extremities and tobacco use. He was discharged to the hospital on 7/12/23. A review of a hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 12:32 PM revealed in part Resident #217 was admitted to the hospital from the vascular clinic on 6/12/23 when a noninvasive test revealed minimal to no blood flow of both lower legs. On 6/15/23 Resident #217 underwent a left femoral popliteal bypass procedure (a graft is placed in the lower leg to create a new blood flow path to replace a damaged…
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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to store narcotic pain medications in a locked compartment in 1 of 1 medication rooms. The findings included: A facility reported investigation report dated 2/21/2023 documented 5 oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets were missing from the medication room. The medications had been delivered to the facility and were left on the counter of the medication room. The report documented the facility became aware of the missing medications on 2/13/2023 at 1:30 PM. No residents were affected by the missing medications. The report read, in part: On 2/6/2023 an order was placed by the Director of Nursing (DON) #2 to replenish emergency narcotic medications for the automated medication dispensing cabinet, including 5 tablets of oxycodone immediate release 5 milligrams (mg); 10 tablets of hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg; and 5 tablets of oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg. The medications were delivered on 2/7/2023 between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM and signed for by Nurse #7. The medications were placed on the counter in 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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee (QAPI) failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor these interventions the committee put into place in February 2022. This was for 1 re-cited deficiency which was originally cited on [DATE] for drug storage (F761), on [DATE] during the follow-up survey (F761), and on the current recertification/complaint survey on [DATE] (F761). The continued failure of the facility during the three federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referred to: F761: Based on record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to store narcotic pain medications in a locked compartment in 1 of 1 medication rooms. During the recertification survey conducted [DATE] the facility failed to: 1) Date opened (in use) injectable medications to allow for 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.
- No harm found · B2025-01-24 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately report staffing for 3 of 5 daily posted sheets reviewed. The findings included: 1. The following daily posted nurse staffing sheets and nursing schedules were reviewed: 8/27/24, 10/1/24, 10/10/24, 12/4/24, and 12/24/24. a. Posted nurse staffing sheet dated 10/1/24 indicated 1 Registered Nurse (RN) and 5 nursing assistants (NAs) were scheduled to work the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM (night) shift. Review of the schedule for 10/1/24 revealed no RN was worked and 3 NAs worked that night. b. Review of the daily posted nurse staffing sheet dated 10/10/24 indicated 5 NAs were working 7:00 AM-3:00 PM (day) shift. The schedule indicated 7 NAs worked that date. The 3:00 PM-11:00 PM (evening) shift posted nurse staffing sheet indicated 5 ½ NAs were working and the scheduled showed that only 5 NAs worked that shift. The night shift daily posted nurse staffing sheet indicated 5 NAs were working and the schedule showed that only 3 NAs worked that shift. c. The daily posted nurse staffing sheet dated 12/4/24…
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
$45,756 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $7,650 — penalty dated 2024-02-08
- $9,525 — penalty dated 2024-02-08
- $28,581 — penalty dated 2023-08-21
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE — 81 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 80 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 80; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| QAZI, MOHAMMAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2016 |
| KHAN, ANIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| STOBB, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2016 |
| ZENITH FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/03/2025 |
| DANNER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| MAYNARD, CATHERINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/26/2024 |
| SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $468K 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 345428. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-13, 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.