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

Barbour Court Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

515 Barbour Road, Smithfield, NC 27577 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 165 certified beds · (919) 934-6017 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (919) 934-6017 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0602) — cited Nov 2024
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

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)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Nov 2024
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • about 22% 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) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
127 E Market St. · (919) 934-7687 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
601 N 8th St · (919) 934-2111 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Food Lion1.3 mi
851 W Market St · (919) 934-9161 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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 increased14.4%15.6%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.8%7.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.6%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.2%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%5.9%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
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 injury2.9%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.4%18.3%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.9%21.3%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.7%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.1%5.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control7.5%20.7%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.8%14.0%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine80.2%78.1%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.7%22.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit16.1%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.171.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.871.801.80worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

48.8% 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 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
45.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.32U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 45.5% 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 33 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 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 SNF48.8%CMS range 39.0–58.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.0%CMS range 7.7–15.210.7%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 discharge45.5%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 discharge42.4%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 discharge24.2%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 identified98.3%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 stay1.7%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 worsened5.2%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 hospitalization8.3%CMS range 5.4–11.17.1%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

0.53
RN hours/ resident / day
0.88
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.74
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.15
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.34
RN hoursweekends
33.0%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 165 beds and averages 137.1 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 28 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.74 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.23 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-26)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-15)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · 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) assessment in the areas of medications (Resident #8, Resident #4, and Resident #5) and Pneumococcal Vaccine (Resident #18). This was for 4 of 28 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed.Findings included:a. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Resident #8's physician orders included Novolog (a rapid acting insulin) injection solution 100 units/milliliter inject 10 units subcutaneously (beneath the skin) with meals. Hold for blood sugar less than 150 with a start date of 3/18/25.Resident #8's December 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) noted Novolog was administered subcutaneously to him on 12/25/25 at 11:30 AM, on 12/26/25 at 6:30 AM, on 12/27/25 at 6:30 AM, 11:30 AM, and 5:30 PM, on 12/28/25 at 6:30 AM and 11:30 AM, on 12/29/25 at 6:30 AM and 5:30 PM, on 12/30/25 at 11:30 AM and 5:30 PM, and on 12/31/25 at 6:30 AM and 5:30 PM.Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated…

    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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews with staff and the Nurse Practitioner (NP), the facility failed to ensure the resident's need for insulin (a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels) administration in accordance with the parameters provided by the physician before administering the insulin. This deficient practice affected 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for unnecessary medications.Findings included:Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM II).A current active physician's order for Resident #8 with a start date of 3/18/25 revealed Novolog injection solution (a type of fast acting insulin)100 units per milliliter inject 10 units subcutaneously (SQ is beneath the skin) with meals and to hold (do not give) for blood sugar (BS) less than 150 (a normal adult BS before eating is between 70 to 99.A review of Resident #8's December 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed documentation by Nurse #1 indicating that…

    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 · Ecited before2024-11-15 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY b. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed the Resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, Parkinson's disease, and cardiovascular disease. The review revealed a full code status was care planned on 5/20/23. There was no documentation in the record for education regarding a formulation of an advance directive and/or an opportunity to formulate an advance directive was offered. c. Review of Resident #51's medical record revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and hypertension. The review revealed a full code Physician order dated 11/5/24. There was no documentation in the record for education regarding a formulation of an advance directive and/or an opportunity to formulate an advance directive was offered. d. Review of Resident #84's medical record revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a history of a stroke and diabetes. 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 date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #100's care plan revealed it was last updated on 10/6/24. A review of Resident #100's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was moderately cognitively impaired. On 11/12/24 at 1:35 PM an interview with Resident #100 indicated he did not recall ever being invited to attend a care plan meeting. He stated he would like to be invited to attend. On 11/13/24 a review of Resident #100's medical record did not reveal any documentation that a care plan meeting was conducted since Resident #100's admission to the facility. On 11/13/24 at 11:03 AM an interview with MDS Nurse #1 indicated Resident #100's Social Worker (SW) was responsible for sending the invitations and for arranging Resident #100's care plan meetings. She reported a care plan schedule calendar was generated based on the MDS assessment dates and provided to the SW. She further indicated Resident #100 would have been scheduled for a care plan meeting…

    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 · D2024-11-15 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and resident, staff, and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from the misappropriation of controlled medication for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for misappropriation. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property dated last revised on 3/10/2017 revealed in part The facility believes that our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, exploitation or misappropriation of property. The facility will do whatever is in it's control to prevent mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, and abuse of our residents or misappropriation of their property. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic pain. A physician's order for Resident #40 dated 5/17/24 indicated to administer oxycodone (a narcotic pain medication) 10 milligrams (mg)/acetaminophen (a non-narcotic pain medication) 325 mg one tablet by…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-15 · 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 observations, record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care for a dependent resident for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) (Resident #18). The findings included: Resident #18 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, Parkinson's disease, and early onset cerebellar ataxia (lack of voluntary coordination of muscle movement beginning at the cerebellum of the brain). A review of a care plan dated 5/5/22 revealed Resident #18 had activities of daily living and personal care deficit with interventions which included Resident #18 was totally dependent on staff for bathing and preferred bed baths. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired and was not coded for rejection of care. Resident #18 required total dependence with bathing and grooming An observation and interview with Resident #18 were conducted on 11/12/24 at 11:54 AM.…

    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 · Dcited before2024-11-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations and staff interviews the facility failed to discard expired medication that remained on the medication cart available for use. This was for 1 of 4 medication carts (Upper 300 Hall) reviewed for medication storage. Findings included: On 11/14/24 at 4:11 PM an observation of the Upper 300 Hall medication cart and interview with the Unit Manager occurred. The observation of the medication cart revealed an opened 355 milliliter (ml) bottle of Antacid Liquid medication with an expiration date of July 2024. The bottle contained liquid medication. An interview with the Unit Manager at that time indicated there was liquid medication remaining in the bottle. She reported this Antacid Liquid medication was expired and should not have been on the medication cart available for use. She stated she checked this medication cart weekly for expired medications and had last checked it on 11/11/24 or 11/12/24. She went on to say she must have missed this bottle. On 11/15/24 at 1:18 PM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the medication carts were monitored…

    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 · Dcited before2023-09-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure advanced directive information matched throughout the medical record for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings included: Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #67's electronic medical record revealed an active physician's order dated [DATE] that read DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). A review of Resident #67's paper medical chart revealed there was no advanced direction information in the paper medical chart. The facility did not have an additional notebook with resident DNRs at the nursing station. Resident #67's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was cognitively intact. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:38 A.M. with Resident #67. Resident #67 indicated she was unable to recall when, but she told someone at the facility she did not want her chest pumped or someone to breathe for her if her body stopped working. She stated she was unable…

    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 · D2023-09-01 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a mental disorder had received a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) prior to admission to the facility for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #100). Findings included: Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another nursing home with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Resident #100 was discharged to the hospital on 3/18/2023 and was readmitted on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #100 was not considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness. There were no Level II PASRR conditions marked for serious mental illness. The MDS indicated Resident #100's diagnoses included bipolar disorder. Resident #100 was noted as receiving an antipsychotic (treatment for mental health conditions) medication daily. Resident #100's care plan dated 4/22/2023 included a focus for the use of psychotropic drugs 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered baseline care plan that included the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for elimination for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #240). Findings included: Resident #240 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and diagnoses included fracture right femur. The nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] at 10:37 p.m. recorded Resident #240's indwelling urinary catheter was draining clear yellow urine. Physician orders dated 2/2/2023 included providing urinary catheter care with soap and water every shift. Physician progress notes dated 2/3/2023 recorded use of the indwelling urinary catheter was due to Resident #240's inability to sit up and use a urinal after surgery of to the right femur. The baseline care plan dated 2/3/2023 for Resident #240 did not address the use of an indwelling catheter for urine elimination. On 9/01/2023 at 9:30 a.m. in an interview with Nurse #2,…

    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 · Dcited before2023-09-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard a resident's unlabeled opened Humalog insulin vial from 1 of 3 medication storage rooms observed (Specialized Programming for Alzheimer's Related Care [SPARC] unit). Findings included: Resident #119 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Physician orders dated 7/25/2023 included an order for Humalog solution 100unit/ml (Insulin Lispro (Human) inject as per sliding scale subcutaneously before meals for diabetes mellitus: if 0-150=0 units, 151-200= 2 units, 251-250=4 units, 251-300=6 units, 301-350=8 units, 351-400 =10 units; 401+ =12 units or above. Call MD if patient symptomatic. The order stated to discard the medication 28 days after opening and to check the expiration date. The order for Humalog insulin was started on 7/25/23 and was discontinued on 7/31/23. A review of Resident #119's Medication Administration Record for July 2023 indicated blood glucose monitoring was conducted three times a day and blood glucose…

    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 · D2023-09-01 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
    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 interivew and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for food preferences (Resident #100). Findings included: Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #100's care plan dated 4/25/2023 included a focus for nutrition with actual weight loss due to cardiac disease. Interventions included providing diet as ordered and referencing dietician evaluations and recommendations. Physician orders dated 5/2/2023 included an order for a regular texture no added salt diet and to encourage fluids and offered hydration periodically every day for hydration. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #100 was moderately cognitively impaired and independently fed herself after the meal tray was set up. Dietary documentation dated 7/18/2023 indicated Resident #100 was receiving a regular textured no added salt diet with thin liquids and was consuming 50-100% on her dietary…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolated
    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 review, observations, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint survey of 4/8/2022. This was for two recited deficiencies on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 9/01/23. The deficiencies included Baseline Care Plan (F655) and Resident Allergies, Preferences and Substitutes (F806). The continued failure during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F-655 Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered baseline care plan that included the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for elimination for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #240). During the recertification and complaint survey 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2026-02-26 · tag F0576 — widespread
    Ensure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interviews with residents and staff, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to receive mail delivered on Saturdays and on the date it was received. This had the potential to affect 136 of 136 residents in the facility.Findings included:During the Resident Council meeting on 2/25/26 at 2:08 PM Resident #26, Resident #39, Resident #54, Resident #73, Resident #94, Resident #95, and Resident #13 reported they did not get their regular mail delivered as the facility received the mail, including Saturdays. Resident #26, the Resident Council President, stated regular mail was delivered to Receptionist #1 Monday through Friday. Receptionist #1 sorted the mail and gave the residents' mail to the activities department to be delivered, but it was hit or miss how quickly the mail was delivered. The Resident Council President further stated Saturday's mail was held at the front desk and given to Receptionist #1 on Monday to sort and the residents' mail was then taken to activities to be delivered. The Resident Council President stated regular mail sometimes…

    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 · No revisit needed

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE — 40 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 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 2 of 53.3-1.3 vs chain
The other 39 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Ayden Court Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAyden, NC 1 of 5Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterSnow Hill, NC 1 of 5River Trace Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWashington, NC 1 of 5Somerwoods Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterSomerset, KY 1 of 5University Place Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterCharlotte, NC 2 of 5Cherry Point Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterHavelock, NC 2 of 5Clear Creek Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterMint Hill, NC 2 of 5Graham Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterRobbinsville, NC 2 of 5Greenwood Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterBowling Green, KY 2 of 5Macon Valley Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterFranklin, NC 2 of 5Magnolia Lane Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterMorganton, NC 2 of 5Northchase Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWilmington, NC 2 of 5Tower Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterRaleigh, NC 2 of 5Westwood Hills Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWilkesboro, NC 2 of 5Willow Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterGoldsboro, NC 3 of 5Bethany Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAlbemarle, NC 3 of 5Franklin Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLouisburg, NC 3 of 5Greenhaven Health and Rehabilitation CenterGreensboro, NC 3 of 5Harmony Hall Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterKinston, NC 3 of 5Pine Ridge Health and Rehabilitation CenterThomasville, NC 3 of 5Piney Grove Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterKernersville, NC 3 of 5Premier Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterJacksonville, NC 3 of 5Richmond Pines Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenteHamlet, NC 3 of 5Riverpoint Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterNew Bern, NC 3 of 5Smoky Mountain Health and Rehabilitation CenterWaynesville, NC 3 of 5Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterClayton, NC 4 of 5Carolina Rivers Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterJacksonville, NC 4 of 5Chowan River Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterEdenton, NC 4 of 5Croatan Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterNewport, NC 4 of 5Kerr Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterHenderson, NC 4 of 5Lake Park Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterIndian Trail, NC 4 of 5Lake Way Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterBenton, KY 4 of 5Northampton Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterJackson, NC 4 of 5Wayland Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterKeysville, VA 4 of 5Wilson Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWilson, NC 5 of 5Grantsbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterGrantsboro, NC 5 of 5Harnett Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterDunn, NC 5 of 5Jacob's Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterMadison, NC 5 of 5Maple Grove Health and Rehabilitation CenterGreensboro, 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC.OrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2011
CUNNINGHAM, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/31/2014
JOHNSON, DIANNEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2011
BOICE, GALEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/05/2018
PRINCIPLE IT SERVICES, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2011

CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.

2 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.

$15.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-7.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.5M
Related-party expense22% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 81%Medicare 5%Other / private 14%

About 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$334per resident / day
operating cost
$10,149per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$310per 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 345237. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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