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

Skyland Terrace and Rehabilitation

516 Wall Street, Waynesville, NC 28786 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (828) 452-3154 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (828) 452-3154 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citations on record (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 20251 actual-harm citation$8,512 in federal fines
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)
Worth asking about
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2025
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-06)

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 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
33 W Marshall St · (828) 738-1002 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
479 Dellwood Rd · (828) 452-2313 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
136 Depot St · (828) 246-6868 · Call to confirm hours
Park
44 Boundary St · (828) 456-8577 · 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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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 increased23.9%15.6%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.9%7.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.8%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms7.3%5.9%6.5%worse
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 injury3.4%3.5%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.9%18.3%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication27.6%21.3%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.8%5.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.1%20.7%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table11.8%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine66.7%78.1%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission5.7%22.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.3%12.9%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.911.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.591.801.80worse

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.

43.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

43.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
52.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.71U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.28hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.29hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 52.9% 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 34 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 0.71 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 92% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 SNF43.2%CMS range 34.0–52.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.0%CMS range 7.5–13.410.7%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 discharge52.9%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 discharge52.9%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 discharge47.1%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 identified94.9%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 stay0.0%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 worsened2.6%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 hospitalization6.3%CMS range 3.2–11.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.111.02Oct 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

0.65
RN hours/ resident / day
0.77
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.98
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.39
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
53.3%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 83.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-19)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-12-06)

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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2024-12-06 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolated
    Provide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
    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 resident, staff, Physician, Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA) and neurology office Scheduler interviews the facility failed to ensure a neurology appointment was scheduled for a resident (Resident #14). The Physician ordered a neurology referral for Resident #14 first on 8/23/24 for evaluation of her tremors. A second neurology consult was ordered by the NP on 11/5/24 again for evaluation of her tremors. Resident #14 had tremors to her upper and lower extremities, including her hands and feet. Resident #14 reported her tremors had worsened, were unmanageable, made her feel awful, and like she could not do anything. Resident #14 reported the tremors made her not want to leave her room because she did not want people to see her in that state. She stated she felt isolated every day and felt down, depressed, and hopeless all the time because nothing was getting better. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for medically related social services (Resident…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · 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 update a care plan to reflect a change of code status for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #40).Findings included:Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and epilepsy.Resident #40's care plan was observed on [DATE] and noted as most recently updated on [DATE]. A death with dignity care plan noted Resident #40's wishes included to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).A progress note written by the Social Worker on [DATE] at 1:27 PM noted Resident #40's family changed the code status to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR).A physician's order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was written on [DATE].Resident #40's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] noted he was rarely or never understood.On [DATE] at 2:28 PM during an interview, the SW stated that any new or updated code status forms which were completed would be placed into the physician's notebook for their review and signature. The physician would…

    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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a nurse assess a resident who had fallen prior to moving the resident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #34). Findings included:Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and heart failure.Resident # 34's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] coded her with severe cognitive impairment. She required moderate assistance for transfers. She was coded for having behaviors and falls since her last MDS assessment.Resident #34 was care planned on 1/28/26 for participation in restorative care due to being at risk for falls during transfers and demonstrating poor safety awareness. The care plan included providing moderate assistance during all transfers as an intervention to promote safety. Furthermore, the resident was care planned for a history of physical aggression towards others on 12/1/25. Interventions included to remove the resident from any situation that may be escalating or causing agitation 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    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 administer a pneumococcal vaccine to a resident who had consented to receive the vaccine for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccines (Resident #72).Findings included:Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #72 had severe cognitive impairment.Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed no documentation that staff had administered a pneumococcal vaccine. The prior pneumococcal immunization history documented revealed a history of Prevnar 13 (pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate) dated 2/11/16.Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed a form titled 'Vaccine Consent Form 2025'. The pneumonia vaccine was marked under the section titled Individual Requests the Following Vaccination(s). The vaccine consent signature section showed that Resident #72's Responsible Party signed the consent for the pneumococcal vaccine on 9/03/25. An interview on 2/17/26 at…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-30 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse when a family member (Family Member #1) hit Resident #1 on the leg, covered her mouth with her hand, and told her to shut up. This affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stoke) affecting left non-dominant side. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. She was not documented on the MDS as having behaviors or rejection of care. The MDS indicated she used a wheelchair, had function limitations in range of motion to her upper and lower extremities on one side, and was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing, personal hygiene, transfers, and mobility. Review 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · 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 Senior Police Officer interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from misappropriation of resident property. This deficient practice was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Resident #78). The findings included: Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included gastrointestinal hemorrhage and hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #78 was cognitively intact. Review of the initial facility report dated 11/30/24 at 10:30 AM documented that Resident #78 reported her wedding rings and mother's ring were missing. An interview with Resident #78 12/05/24 at 9:56 AM revealed that there were 5 rings missing. She stated that her family had taken her out on Wednesday, 11/27/24, to get a manicure for Thanksgiving. At that time, her family had given her 5 rings to wear for Thanksgiving on 11/28/24. She stated that she wore them out with her…

    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 · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident, staff, and wound care center Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to follow physician orders from the wound care center for the treatment of a stage II pressure ulcer (partial thickness open wound) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for services to prevent and treat pressure ulcers (Resident #233). The findings included: Resident #233 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease (narrowing of peripheral blood vessels that can cause a disruption in blood flow) with chronic bilateral lower extremity wounds and eczema (a condition that causes red, dry, itchy skin). Resident #233 was discharged from the facility on 6/14/24. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #233 was cognitively intact. She was not coded on the MDS for an unhealed pressure ulcer. She was documented on the MDS as having venous and arterial ulcers present. Resident #233 had a care plan dated as…

    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 before2024-12-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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 nutritional supplement from 1 of 2 nourishment room refrigerators. This practice had the potential to affect residents who received nutritional supplements. Findings included: On 12/4/24 at 2:12 PM an observation of the north nourishment room refrigerator was conducted with the Dietary Manager. The door shelf of the refrigerator contained one container of nutritional supplement dated with 11/25 received date and an additional date of 11/25 open date. The nutritional supplement container was approximately 25% full. The Dietary Manager stated during the observation that opened and stored refrigerator items should be discarded after 7 days. The Dietary Manager immediately discarded the nutritional supplement. The Dietary Manager stated the nourishment room refrigerator was checked two times daily, once in the morning and once in the evening by the dietary staff for expired items, dated and labeled open items, and items to restock. The Dietary Manager stated the nutritional supplement was placed in the…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — pattern
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify drug irregularities and provide recommendations for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #24 and Resident #38). The findings included: 1.Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hyperlipidemia. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed a lipid panel had not been completed since she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the physician orders dated 11/12/21 revealed an order for Resident #24 to receive 1 tablet of atorvastatin 20 milligrams (mg) by mouth once daily at bedtime for hyperlipidemia. A review of medication administration records (MARs) indicated Resident #24 had received atorvastatin as ordered for the past 12 months. Review of Resident #24's vital signs revealed her blood pressure was stable and within the normal limits for the past 6 months. 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — pattern
    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 record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and the Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when nurses failed to follow physician's perimeter setting as ordered during insulin administration. As a result, Resident #24 received 2 doses of unnecessary Novolog insulin within 1 day, and Resident #38 had received 34 doses of unnecessary Novolog insulin in June 2023, 13 doses of unnecessary Novolog insulin in July 2023. This affected 2 of 7 residents reviewed for significant medication errors (Resident #24 and Resident #38). The findings included: 1.Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included diabetes mellitus. The diabetic care plan initiated on 05/24/21 for Resident #24 revealed she was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. The goal was to remain free of complications related to diabetes through the next review period. Intervention included to administer diabetes medications as ordered by the…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-07-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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 walk-in refrigerator from an accumulation of thick, clumpy grayish matter on the circulatory fan cover and thick, clumpy darkish buildup on the floor of 1 of 2 walk-in refrigerators. In addition, the facility failed to discard 2 opened loaves of expired bread. This practice had the potential to affect foods served to residents. Findings included: 1.On 07/11/23 at 9:32 AM an observation of the kitchen prep table revealed 2 opened loaves of bread sitting next to the toaster and ready to be used. The label on the plastic wrap of the white sandwich bread indicated it was expired on 07/08/23 and the whole wheat bread revealed it was expired on 07/09/23. Further observation revealed half of both loaves of bread had been used. During an interview conducted on 07/11/23 at 9:37 AM, [NAME] #1 stated she had used one slice of bread from both loaves of bread this morning to make toasts for residents. She explained it was her oversight as she did not pay attention to the expiration dates of the breads prior to using it.…

    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 · D2023-07-14 · tag F0641 — isolated
    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) regarding smoking for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for smoking (Resident #58). Findings included: Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The smoking care plan initiated on 01/31/23 for Resident #58 revealed she was an unsafe smoker. The goal was to remain free of injury from unsafe smoking practices through the review date. Interventions included instructing Resident #58 about smoking risks and policy of smoking, monitoring for unsafe smoking with oxygen, and providing supervision when while smoking. Review the smoking assessment for Resident #58 on 04/28/23 revealed she was assessed as an unsafe smoker and required direct supervision during smoking. Review of the admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #58 was coded as a non-tobacco user under Section J 1300. During an interview conducted on 07/11/23 at 3:03 PM, Resident #58 stated she had smoked cigarettes from the day she had been…

    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 · D2023-07-14 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews with Resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to monitor cholesterol level for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #24). The findings included: Review of lipid guidelines published in 2019 by American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association indicated a lipid panel should be conducted at baseline, then 4 to 12 weeks after statin therapy was started or when a dosage was adjusted. Afterwards, a lipid panel test should be repeated once every 3 to 12 months or as needed. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hyperlipidemia. Review of medical records for Resident #24 revealed a lipid panel had not been completed since she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of physician's orders dated 11/12/21 revealed an order for Resident #24 to receive 1 tablet of atorvastatin 20 milligrams (mg) by mouth once daily at bedtime for hyperlipidemia. A review…

    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

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

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,512 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,512 — penalty dated 2024-12-06

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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
COOLEY, MISTIEIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL49%since 01/19/2025
GATEWOOD, THOMASIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL51%since 01/19/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$8.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 13%Other / private 11%

About 76% 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. 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

$411per resident / day
operating cost
$12,484per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$371per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NC

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345411. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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