No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center

3100 Tramway Road, Sanford, NC 27330 · For profit - Corporation · 83 certified beds · (919) 775-5404 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (919) 775-5404 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$8,278 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
Worth asking about
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-21)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • about 26% 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
3112 Tramway Road
Pharmacy
2286 Jefferson Davis Hwy · (919) 777-5983 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1512 Westover Dr · (606) 342-0211 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2303 Tramway Rd · (919) 775-2107 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
744 Minter School Rd · (919) 774-1779

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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased15.5%15.6%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.9%7.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.4%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.3%2.3%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.7%5.9%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.0%3.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.2%18.3%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.7%21.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.6%5.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control31.3%20.7%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.4%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.1%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.5%78.1%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.5%22.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.9%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.951.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.691.801.80typical

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.

65.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 273 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

65.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
43.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.32U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 43.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 119 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF65.0%CMS range 59.6–70.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.4%CMS range 8.6–15.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge43.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge45.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge41.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified98.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay1.4%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.8%CMS range 4.9–11.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.921.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.43
RN hours/ resident / day
0.88
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.00
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.21
RN hoursweekends
48.6%
Total nursing turnover
45.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 83 beds and averages 79.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-21)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-08-23)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2025-08-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform a transfer from the bed to wheelchair in a safe manner for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #26). Resident #26 had pain and sustained a skin tear (laceration) to midline shin (the front of the leg below the knee) with significant depth to left lower leg which required a visit to the emergency department and sutures. Findings included: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses that included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, polyneuropathy and anemia. The admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #26 was coded as cognitively intact, required wheelchair for mobility, required partial/moderate assistance for a chair-to-bed transfer. On the same assessment, she was also coded as requiring supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene. Documentation on Resident #26's care plan initiated on 8/6/2025 revealed a focus…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to notify the MD when a stage three pressure ulcer was identified for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #71). Findings Included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for fracture of right femur with a plan for discharge home after rehabilitation. Resident #71 was discharged from the hospital after surgery to repair a right femur fracture. Review of the Wound Care Nurse's assessment on admission on [DATE] revealed she noted redness to sacral area. On 08/23/24 at 12:31 pm a telephone interview with Nurse #1 revealed on 08/13/24 she was called to the resident's room by the (Nurse Aide) NA providing care to Resident #71. She reported the sacral pressure ulcer appeared to have slough, she measured it and left a message for the Wound Care Nurse to further assess. Wound Care Nurse's note dated 08/14/24 revealed that a sacral pressure ulcer was noted by the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift nurse. This…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-23 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide 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, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to do a weekly skin assessment which resulted in the delay of identification of a stage three pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #71). The findings included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for fracture of right femur with a plan for discharge home after rehabilitation. Resident #71 was discharged from the hospital after surgery to repair a right femur fracture. Review of the Wound Care Nurse's assessment on admission on [DATE] revealed she noted redness to sacral area. Further review of records revealed that on 08/02/24 a verbal order for zinc oxide external ointment 20% (topical), apply to sacrum topically two times a day was initiated and to do weekly skin checks. A care plan dated 08/05/24 revealed interventions of assistance with incontinence care and bed mobility to reduce the risk of pressure ulcer development. The 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-09 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents whose MDS were reviewed. Findings included: 1 a. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF). Resident #4 had a physician's order dated 12/14/22 for Bumetanide (a diuretic drug) 1 milligram (mg.) by mouth twice a day for CHF. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #4 had received Bumetanide from January 1 through January 31, 2023. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #4 had received a diuretic medication during the assessment period. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-09 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — pattern
    Provide 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, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Wound Physician and staff, the facility failed to obtain an order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer (Resident #4) and failed to ensure the alternating air mattress was functioning resulting in a deflated air mattress (Resident #29) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents #4 & #29). Findings included: 1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, thoracic, thoracolumbar, lumbosacral, and intervertebral disk disorder, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure (CHF). A review of Resident #4's weekly decubitus ulcer assessments dated 1/11/23 revealed that Resident #4 had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the right buttock measuring 2.7 centimeter (cm) by (x) 2.6 cm x 0.1 cm. with 25 % slough (dead tissue). Resident #4 had a physician order dated 1/11/23 to clean the right buttock pressure ulcer with wound cleanser, pat dry,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-09 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — pattern
    Ensure 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 reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medications (Residents #18 and #42) and blood pressure medications (Residents #42 and #22) as ordered by the physician for 3 of 6 residents whose medications were reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes. A Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #18's February 2023 and March 2023 physician orders included an order for Levemir Solution (a diabetic medication) 100 unit per milliliter. Inject 5 units subcutaneously in the morning for diabetes. Please hold for blood sugar less than 120. The February 2023 and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) were reviewed and revealed Resident #18 had received Levemir, despite the blood sugar less than 120 on the following dates: - 2/7/23- blood sugar was…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-09 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record reviews, observations, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the annual recertification survey on 7/1/21. This was for four deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments, Activities of Daily Living Care Provided to Dependent Residents, Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure Ulcers and Drug Regimen is Free From Unnecessary Drugs. The duplicate citations during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. The findings included: These citations are cross referenced to: 1. F641- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident diagnosis of mental illness for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II screen for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARR (Resident #7). Findings included: Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with PASARR level I screen which indicated the screen did not go to level II. Resident #7 had no mental health related diagnosis noted on admission to the facility. The psychiatric note dated 3/8/21 indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and was on Zoloft and Doxepin for depression and Remeron for appetite stimulant. The note indicated to discontinue Doxepin as part of gradual dose reduction (GDR). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of depression and had received an antidepressant medication during the assessment period. The psychiatric note dated 5/3/21 revealed that Resident #7…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 of 5 sampled residents who needed extensive assistance or were dependent on the staff for activities of daily living (Resident #59). Findings included: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis including hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left dominant side and dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #59 had moderate cognitive impairment and she needed extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing. The assessment further indicated that the resident had no behaviors including rejection of care. Resident #59's care plan that was reviewed on 1/29/23 revealed that she had an activity of daily living (ADL) self -care performance deficit related to hemiplegia/hemiparesis. The approaches included I required staff extensive assistance with grooming and personal…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was provided as ordered by the physician for 1 of 4 sampled residents for respiratory care (Resident #33). The findings included: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was cognitively intact. She required extensive assistance with 2 people with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. She was coded as utilizing oxygen. Resident #33's care plan dated 05/11/22 revealed she required oxygen therapy due to congestive heart failure. The goal included she would have no signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorptions through the review date. Interventions, in part, included oxygen settings are based on physician orders and observe for signs and symptoms of…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 resident and staff interview, the facility failed to have accurate and complete medical records in the areas of pressure ulcers (Resident #4), wound care (Resident #29) & splint application (Resident #1) for 3 of 20 sampled residents whose medical records were reviewed (Residents # 1, # 4 & #29). Findings included: 1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the weekly decubitus ulcer (damage to an area of the skin caused by constant pressure on the area for a long time) assessments was conducted. The assessment revealed that Resident #4 had developed a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock on 1/24/23. Review of the physician's orders from January 2023 through March 2023 revealed there was no treatment ordered for the stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock. Review of the January through March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) revealed there was no evidence that treatment was provided to the left buttock pressure ulcer. On 3/7/23…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2023-03-09 · tag F0623 — pattern
    Provide 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 reviews and interviews with staff, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) written notification of the reason for a hospital transfer for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents #54 and #17). The findings included: 1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #54 was cognitively intact. Resident #54's medical record revealed she was transferred to the hospital on 2/26/23 for altered mental status and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation that written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/or RP for the reason of the transfer. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:55 AM and stated she was not responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. On 3/7/23 at 10:56 AM, the Admissions staff member was interviewed and stated that she began employment at the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-08-21

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 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.1+0.9 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.2-0.2 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 53.0-1.0 vs chain
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
1 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWhiteville, NC 1 of 5Louisburg Healthcare & Rehabilitation CenterLouisburg, NC 1 of 5Mary Gran Nursing CenterClinton, NC 1 of 5Oak Forest Health and RehabilitationWinston-Salem, NC 1 of 5Woodhaven Nursing CenterLumberton, NC 2 of 5Highland House Rehabilitation and HealthcareFayetteville, NC 2 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ofBenson, NC 2 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterSanford, NC 2 of 5Liberty Commons Rehabilitation CenterWilmington, NC 2 of 5Pavilion Health Center at BrightmoreCharlotte, NC 2 of 5Pinehurst Healthcare & Rehabilitation CenterPinehurst, NC 2 of 5Pisgah Manor Health Care CenterCandler, NC 2 of 5Roxboro Healthcare & Rehab CenterRoxboro, NC 2 of 5Royal Park Rehabilitation & Health CenterMatthews, NC 2 of 5The Foley Center at Chestnut RidgeBlowing Rock, NC 2 of 5The OaksWinston-Salem, NC 3 of 5Bermuda Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAdvance, NC 3 of 5Elizabethtown Healthcare & Rehab CenterElizabethtown, NC 3 of 5Liberty Commons Nsg and Rehab Ctr of Rowan CountySalisbury, NC 3 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehab Center of SouthporSouthport, NC 3 of 5Shoreland Health Care and Retirement Center IncWhiteville, NC 3 of 5Silver BluffCanton, NC 3 of 5Southwood Nursing and RetirementClinton, NC 3 of 5Summerstone Health and Rehabilitation CenterKernersville, NC 3 of 5Warren Hills Nursing CenterWarrenton, NC 4 of 5Briar Creek Health CenterCharlotte, NC 4 of 5Capital Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterRaleigh, NC 4 of 5Inn at Quail Haven VillagePinehurst, NC 4 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ofBurlington, NC 4 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWeldon, NC 4 of 5Liberty Healthcare Services of Golden Years NursinFalcon, NC 4 of 5The Preserve At Fairfield GladeCrossville, TN 4 of 5Three Rivers Health and Rehabilitation CenterWindsor, NC 4 of 5Woodlands Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterFayetteville, NC 5 of 5Parkview Health and Rehabilitation CenterChapel Hill, NC 5 of 5Yadkin Nursing and Care CenterYadkinville, NC

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
LONG TERM CARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 03/10/2011
MCNEILL, JOHNIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 03/10/2011
MCNEILL, RONALDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 03/10/2011
LIBERTY LONG TERM CARE LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 04/29/2025
JOHN A MCNEILL JR 2012 IRRV TROrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 04/29/2025
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE GROUP LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 04/29/2025
RONALD B. AND CYNTHIA J. MCNEILL 2013 IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 04/29/2025
MILLER, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/29/2025
MITCHELL, RAJANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/29/2025
WILSON, JEFFREYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/10/2011
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2005
CALCUTT, JOSEPHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/10/2011
OSANO, PATIENCEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/29/2025
OLIVER, ANNAIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/08/2025
PURVIS, JENNYIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/08/2025

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.

6 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.

$9.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-1.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.5M
Related-party expense26% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 50%Medicare 20%Other / private 29%

This home reported $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% 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

$378per resident / day
operating cost
$11,487per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$371per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in North Carolina
$9,733/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,798/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,496/mo
Assisted living

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 345216. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, 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.

What to do next