The Greens at Spruce Pines
218 Laurel Creek Court, Spruce Pine, NC 28777 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 127 certified beds · (828) 765-7312 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $153,439 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-11)
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.5% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.9% | 5.9% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.6% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.1% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.1% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.8% | 94.1% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.7% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.1% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 33.3% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.2% | 22.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.1% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.91 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.95 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.6% 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 119 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.9% 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 77 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 54.6%CMS range 44.5–63.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 7.3–13.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 23.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.9%CMS range 2.9–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 127 beds and averages 106.6 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 20 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.09 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.58 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-11 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a 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, observations, and interviews with staff, Speech Therapist (ST), Physician Assistant (PA), and Medical Director, the facility failed to provide speech therapy evaluation and services to Resident #70 during his stay. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] with a recent history of aspiration pneumonitis (a type of lung infection that is due to a relatively large amount of material from the stomach or mouth entering the lungs) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (a medical condition where the body rapidly fails to adequately oxygenate the blood, leading to a severe lack of oxygen in the tissues). Resident #70 required a mechanical soft diet with nectar thickened liquids when he was admitted on [DATE]. On 12/18/24 Resident #70 was diagnosed with pneumonia at the facility and treated with a 7-day course of antibiotics. His diet was downgraded to puree with nectar thick liquids by Unit Manager (UM) #1 on 12/19/24. Resident #70 was not evaluated by speech therapy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean floor and walls in of 1 of 1 kitchen dry food storage room.The findings included:On 5/11/26 at 9:56 AM an observation was made of the kitchen's dry food storage room with the Dietary Manager. The dry food storage room floor had vinyl tiles, painted walls and vinyl wall base molding. The front wall to the left of the door was 10 feet wide and backed up to the walk-in freezer on the other side of the wall. There were three, 6-foot-tall shelves the full length of front wall from left to right including a 2-foot-wide wire rack shelf on wheels, a 2-foot-wide stationary solid metal can shelf, and a 4-foot- wide wire rack shelf on wheels. The left wall was 10 feet wide, had wire rack shelving on wheels covering the wall's full length, and backed up to the building's exterior on the other side of the wall. Scattered dark floor and wall stains were partly visible through the lower wire rack shelves on the front and left walls. The Dietary Manager pulled the wire rack shelving on wheels away from the front 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to clean and maintain the reach-in refrigerator, walk-in refrigerator and the steam table knobs in the kitchen. The facility also failed to remove expired tube feeding containers from 1 of 2 nourishment rooms. This practice had the potential to affect residents in the facility. Findings included a. An observation of the kitchen's reach-in refrigerator was made with the Dietary Manager (DM) on [DATE] at 10:38 AM. The observation found the inside floor of the refrigerator and the bottom of the inside side of the door contained splattered, sticky to touch red substance. The reach-in refrigerator's circulatory fan cover was observed covered with thick brown/gray debris that was crumbly to touch. b. On [DATE] at 10:46 AM the walk-in refrigerator ceiling was found to contain gray in color, loosely hanging debris. The debris was crumbly to touch and was in the back of the walk-refrigerator near the cooling fan. c. On [DATE] at 10:49 AM each of the six the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-11 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain and repair 1 of 1 leaking steam cooker for 1 of 1 steam cooker observed. Findings included On 1/23/25 at 12:11 PM an observation of the kitchen's steam cooker found hot water dripping from the bottom of the steam cooker door while in use. The steam cooker was observed spewing steam out from each side of the closed steam cooker door when it was being used to heat food. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated the steamer had been leaking water and steam since he had become the DM in August 2024. The DM said he had not informed the Maintenance Director the steamer needed repair since he became the DM, and he thought the door seal needed to be replaced to keep the steam and water from leaking out when in use. The DM stated when something needed to be repaired in the kitchen, he verbally communicated it to the Maintenance Director who would complete the repairs or outsource to complete the repairs. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 1/24/25 at 11:26 AM. He stated the steam cooker seal had been repaired once…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-11 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an accurate baseline care plan for a resident (Resident #70) when the care plan did not include the type of thickened liquids ordered for Resident #70. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for baseline care plans. Findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #70 was cognitively intact. He was coded on the MDS as having a mechanically altered diet. A diet order dated 12/17/24 read, regular diet, mechanical soft texture, nectar thick liquids. The order was discontinued on 12/19/24. A baseline care plan dated 12/17/24 read under dietary: Diet order, regular mechanical soft thickened liquids. A diet order dated 12/19/24 read, regular diet, puree texture, nectar thick liquids. The order was discontinued on 1/13/25. A hospital discharge summary for Resident #70 dated 1/13/25 revealed he was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, staff and Physician Assistant (PA) interviews, the facility failed to provide thickened liquids as ordered to a resident (Resident #70) when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 gave Resident #70 nectar thick liquids to drink instead of honey thick liquids. Resident #70 required honey thick liquids due to his risk of aspiration and history of aspiration pneumonia. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accident hazards. The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] following hospitalization. The admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #70 was cognitively intact. The MDS documented he had no behavior or rejection of care. The MDS indicated Resident #70 required substantial/ maximal assistance from staff with eating. He was coded on the MDS as having a mechanically altered diet. The hospital discharge summary for Resident #70 dated 1/13/25 revealed he was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, staff, Physician Assistant (PA), and Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% by having 3 errors out of 35 opportunities which resulted in an 8.57% medication error rate. This affected 1 of 4 residents observed for medication administration (Resident #19). Findings included: Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her medical diagnoses included: hypertension (high blood pressure), angina (chest pain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic respiratory disease), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). A Physician's order dated 9/26/24 read, may crush medications unless contraindicated. A physician's order dated 9/27/24 read Isosorbide Mononitrate (cardiac medication) extended release (ER) 24-hour 30 milligram (mg) oral tablet, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for angina. The manufacturer's package insert instructions for the administration of Isosorbide Mononitrate dated 2/2025…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the 400-hall medication cart was secured while unattended. This was for 1 of 5 medication carts observed (400 hall). Findings included An observation on 1/22/25 at 1:52 PM revealed the 400-hall medication cart was unattended and unlocked with the lock in the outward position. The medication cart was located directly outside the nurses' station and across the hall from a resident activity room. A continuous observation of the medication cart occurred on 1/22/25 from 1:52 PM to 2:03 PM in which 16 facility staff passed the unlocked cart. A resident was observed sitting in their wheelchair approximately 10 feet from the cart while unlocked. Nurse #1 who was assigned to the 400 hall nurses cart arrived back to the medication cart on 1/22/25 at 2:03 PM, locked the cart and was interviewed. Nurse #1 stated she had placed the medication cart by the nurses' station and did not double check that the cart was locked. She stated she normally locked the cart and should have locked the cart before leaving it unattended.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-11 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide drinks consistent with the resident's needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #70) reviewed for drinks available to meet resident needs. The findings included: Resident #70 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) was listed on Resident #70's 1/13/25 hospital discharge summary. A diet order dated 1/13/25 read, regular diet, puree texture, honey thick liquids. Resident #70 had a care plan revised on 1/14/25 that read: Resident #70 has a nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem and is reliant on thickened liquids and puree food at this time. The care plan intervention said to provide and serve diet as ordered. An observation was completed on 1/21/25 at 1:10 PM of the hydration cooler in Resident #70's room. The cooler contained a carton labeled nectar thick lemon water. The carton was dated with an open date of 1/21/25. An interview was conducted with Nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a hazard-free environment by leaving a pair of blunt tipped scissors unsecured in the dining room of the locked memory care unit, resulting in a resident obtaining the scissors and making multiple superficial cuts to his penis. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility 08/15/24 with a diagnosis including non-Alzheimer's dementia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was moderately cognitively impaired and did not have behaviors during the look back period. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 10/22/24 at 11:00 AM revealed she was caring for Resident #1 on 09/02/24 on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. She stated she and NA #2 went into Resident #1's room the morning of 09/02/24 to assist him out of bed when she noticed blood on his bed sheet. NA #1 stated she thought Resident #1 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired food items stored for use in the walk-in freezer, cooler, and dry goods storage room in the kitchen and failed to remove and/or label and date food items available for use in 1 of 2 nourishment rooms (100 Hall nourishment room). These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: 1. An observation and interview conducted on 09/26/23 at 9:35 AM with the Dietary District Manager revealed during the initial kitchen tour a bag of 11 frozen Salisbury steaks were observed to be undated in the walk-in freezer. The observation further revealed in the dry goods storage room was three cereals with the discard date 09/21/23, 09/24/23, and 09/14/23. Also included were flour tortillas with discard date 06/16/23, and 14 46 fl. ounce cartons of emergency orange juice with discard date 07/05/23. The dietary District Manager stated the items observed should have been discarded. 2. An observation and interview conducted on 09/26/23 at 10:00 AM with Nurse #1 revealed the nourishment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff and resident interviews the facility failed to label a tube feeding formula bag for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 204). The findings included: Resident #204 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left dominant side, and gastrostomy status (surgical procedure for inserting a tube through the abdomen wall and into the stomach. The tube is used for feeding or drainage). Review of Resident #204's nursing admission assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact and was independent with eating (oral intake) but was dependent for continuous tube feedings. Review of Resident #204's baseline care plan dated 09/23/23 revealed the resident received tube feedings. The goal for Resident #204 was to maintain weight. Review of a physician order dated 09/24/23 revealed an order for Resident #204 to receive Two Cal HN 120 millimeters (ml) per hour (hr) administered over a 2-hour period and to equal 240 ml three times a day via…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$153,439 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $139,942 — penalty dated 2025-02-11
- $6,748 — penalty dated 2023-09-28
- $6,749 — penalty dated 2023-09-28
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 CCH HEALTHCARE — 33 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BYNC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2022 |
| STARLIGHT HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 07/01/2022 |
| TINSLEY, SHELLEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| JEREMIAS, BARUCH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| STERN, JACOB | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345270. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, 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.