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

The Greens at Weaverville

78 Weaver Boulevard, Weaverville, NC 28787 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 122 certified beds · (828) 645-4297 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (828) 645-4297 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 12 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • nursing-staff turnover (67%) 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.

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 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
78 Weaver Blvd, Weaverville, NC 28787 · (828) 645-5088 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3 N Main St · (828) 484-7800 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
140 Weaver Blvd.
Park
25 N Main St · 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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased7.9%15.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.8%7.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.7%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.9%5.9%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.4%3.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.7%18.3%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.6%21.3%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine94.0%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.4%5.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.4%20.7%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.3%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.3%78.1%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.3%22.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.0%12.9%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.051.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.161.801.80better

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.

54.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 203 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

54.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
55.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.53U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.22hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.23hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 55.4% 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 121 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 SNF54.3%CMS range 49.1–60.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.8%CMS range 6.3–12.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge55.4%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 discharge43.8%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 discharge32.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified98.8%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 setting90.2%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.9%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 worsened0.6%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 hospitalization8.4%CMS range 5.3–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.211.02Oct 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

0.93
RN hours/ resident / day
0.74
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.92
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.59
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.66
RN hoursweekends
66.9%
Total nursing turnover
70.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 122 beds and averages 109.0 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.72 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-31)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-12)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    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, Primary Care Physician (PCP), facility Physician, Nurse Practitioner (NP), assisted living Director of Nursing, and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to provide an accurate medication list on an FL-2 to an assisted living facility for a resident who was discharged home from the facility while waiting on assisted living placement. The allergies listed were also incorrect. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included an encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation of right second toe, Alzheimer's dementia, essential hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Resident #1's discharge instructions dated 3/18/26 revealed he was discharged home on 3/18/26 with his correct current medication summary list. This list of medications was signed by the Responsible Party (RP), dated 3/18/26 and included the following…

    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 · Ecited before2025-07-31 · 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 interviews with staff, the facility failed to remove expired food with signs of spoilage stored for use in 1 of 3 refrigerators (the walk-in refrigerator). This had the potential to affect food served to the residents in the facility.Findings includedOn 7/28/25 at 10:15 AM an observation with the Dietary Manager (DM) in the walk-in refrigerator found a box of yellow squash with a written date of 7/9. The box of yellow squash was located underneath an additional box of yellow squash with a written date of 7/14 stored on the second shelf. The yellow squash dated 7/9 were observed to contain dark, splotchy and sunken in areas and the squash was not firm to touch. Furthermore, 1 squash located in the bottom of the box was broken into two pieces and was mushy when touched. The DM stated during the observation the yellow squash needed to be thrown out. The DM immediately removed and threw away the yellow squash. A follow-up interview with the DM was conducted on 7/31/25 at 12:56 PM. He stated it was his responsibility to check all food storage areas 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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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, the facility failed to care plan a resident who had a physician's order for an antipsychotic medication. This was for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication (Resident #86).Findings includedResident #86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included adjustment disorder.Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] coded her cognitively intact and indicated she had received an antipsychotic during the 7-day look back period. Resident #86 had a physician's order dated 6/23/25 for quetiapine fumarate oral tablet 50 milligram (antipsychotic). With instructions to give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for adjustment disorder with other symptoms. A review of Resident #86's care plan that was dated last reviewed on 6/30/25 found no care plan for antipsychotic medication use. On 7/31/25 at 10:22 AM, MDS Nurse #1 stated Resident #86's care plan had not included a care plan for an antipsychotic medication. MDS Nurse #1 added the physician's…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-12 · 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 clean and sanitary kitchen floor, date an opened nutritional supplement and food in 1 of 3 nourishment rooms (300 hall), clean and sanitize an ice scoop and holder for 1 of 3 ice chests, and date opened cheese in the walk-in refrigerator. This practice had the potential to affect food served to all residents. The findings included: a. An observation of the kitchen on 6/9/24 at 9:44 AM found the kitchen floor tiles to be covered with a black substance and sticky when walked on as evidenced by the sound that was made when the floor was walked on, and the surveyor's shoes stuck to the floor. The black substance and sticky floor were not contained to one area of the kitchen floor and was spread throughout the kitchen. An observation of the kitchen floor on 6/11/24 at 12:18 PM found the kitchen floor unchanged. The floor areas underneath and directly around 3 food prep tables were found to contain food and other debris. b. An observation of the 300-nourishment room refrigerator was conducted on 6/11/24 at 10:54…

    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 · Dcited before2024-06-12 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was completed for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #80 and Resident #86) reviewed for PASRR. The findings included: 1. Resident #80 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. A review of Resident #80's medical record indicated bipolar disorder was added to her diagnoses list effective 6/5/23. There was no information in Resident #80's medical record regarding PASRR. An interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) on 6/12/24 at 9:13 AM revealed she started working at the facility in November 2023, and she was responsible for PASRR. The SSD stated she knew Resident #80 had been at the facility for a while even before she started working at the facility. During the interview, the SSD searched for PASRR information in Resident #80's medical record and agreed that she could not find any. She looked up Resident #80's PASRR from the North Carolina…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 resident, staff, Registered Dietitian and the Medical Director, the facility failed to provide a nutritional supplement and double protein as ordered by the Registered Dietitian for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #90) reviewed for nutrition. The findings included: Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of diabetes and a pressure ulcer on left buttocks. On 2/1/24 Resident #90 was weighed using a sit-down scale and his weight was 253.0 pounds. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #90 was alert and cognitively intact. He had no weight loss. Resident #90's care plan dated 5/15/24 stated he was to have dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) advanced meats and mechanically altered diet for all food categories. The interventions included to provide and serve supplements as ordered and provide and serve diet as ordered. On 4/24/24 Resident #90 was weighed using a total mechanical lift and his weight was…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-04-06 · tag F0554 — pattern
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to assess the ability of residents to self-administer medications for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for self-administration of medication (Resident #35, Resident #39, and Resident #7). Findings included: 1. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility 06/17/22 with multiple diagnoses including spinal stenosis (when the spaces in the spine narrow and cause pressure on the spinal cord and nerve roots). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 was cognitively intact. Review of the medical record revealed no documentation that Resident #35 had been assessed for self-administration of medication. An observation of Resident #35's room on 04/03/23 at 11:32 AM revealed the following: a. a 15 milliliter (ml) bottle of carboxymethylcellulose sodium 0.5% eye drops (eye drops that help with dry eyes) sitting on the overbed table b. a 1.76 ounce (oz) tube of diclofenac sodium topical gel 1% (a topical anti-inflammatory…

    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 · Ecited before2023-04-06 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove expired food, and to date and label opened food in 1 of 3 kitchen refrigerators. The facility failed to remove expired resident food in 1 of 2 nourishment refrigerators (nourishment room [ROOM NUMBER]). Additionally, the facility failed to maintain a clean wall behind the dish machine free of black matter and maintain and repair a leaking dish machine pipe. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included 1. On 4/03/23 at 8:15 AM an observation of the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen revealed multiple stored food items that were expired or stored without a use by date. The Dietary Manager was not present at the time of the observation. The second shelf of the walk-in refrigerator contained as followed: 1 opened bag of French toast not dated. 2-quart plastic container of lettuce dated 3-27 and use by 3-30. 2-quart container of chicken broth dated 3-26 and use by 4-2. 1 plastic bag with Swiss…

    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 · D2023-04-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident in a dignified and respectful manner when Nurse Aide #1 spoke and acted in a manner that made a resident feel uncomfortable for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #21). Findings included: Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left tibia (larger bone in the lower leg) and fibula (smaller bone in the lower leg) fractures. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #21 with intact cognition. Resident #21 required physical assistance of one to two staff members with transfers, bed mobility and toileting. During an interview on 04/03/23 at 10:43 AM, Resident #21 revealed on Saturday 04/01/23, NA #1 had just finished cleaning her up after an incontinence episode when within minutes she had another incontinent episode where urine leaked out from her brief onto the bed. Resident #21 stated that while NA #1 was cleaning her up the second time,…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-06 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for a resident with a new mental health diagnosis for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR (Resident #44). Findings included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included panic disorder, major depressive disorder, and psychotic disorder with delusions due to a known physiological condition. The North Carolina Medicaid Uniform Screening Tool (NC MUST) inquiry dated 04/06/23 revealed Resident #44 had a Level I PASRR effective 10/11/22. A Psychiatrist progress note dated 01/26/23 revealed in part, Resident #44 had been having some delusions that her water was poisoned and hearing people talking to her. It was further noted Resident #44 reported feeling restless, anxious, and realized people were not in the room with her but still worried about the voices. The assessment and plan noted a new diagnosis of psychotic disorder with delusions due to known…

    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 · D2023-04-06 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff and resident interviews the facility failed to correctly enter an order to obtain a speech therapy (ST) evaluation as ordered by a Nurse Practitioner (NP) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for therapy services. Findings included: Resident #76 was admitted to the facility 02/08/23 with multiple diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Resident #76 had a Physician order dated 02/10/23 to receive a mechanical soft diet (a diet consisting of foods that could be swallowed safely). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #76 was cognitively intact and received a mechanically altered diet. The nutrition care plan initiated 02/15/23 revealed Resident #76 had a nutritional problem related in part to a diagnosis of dysphagia and interventions included providing her diet as ordered and monitoring her meal intakes. NP #1's progress note revealed Resident #76 was seen for diet/swallowing on 03/07/23. The note further stated Resident #76…

    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 · D2023-04-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, and record review the facility failed to secure medication for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #10) observed with medication at bedside. The findings included: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a stage 3 pressure ulcer. A review of Resident #10's physician's orders revealed an order dated 12/16/22 to clean wound with wound cleaner and apply zinc with collagen every shift and as needed. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. On 11/25/22 Resident #10's self-administration of medication assessment documented Resident #10 was not able to self-administer medications. An observation of Resident #10's room and interview were conducted on 4/3/23 at 10:09 AM. The Resident was alert and lying in bed. A container labeled zinc oxide with collagen paste was on the overbed table. The Resident stated the zinc oxide with collagen paste was left on her overbed table a lot of the time. Nurse # 1…

    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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.5+0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.9+0.1 vs chain
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
1 of 5Carver Living CenterDurham, NC 1 of 5Countryside Manor Nursing And Rehabilitation LLCFremont, OH 1 of 5Harrison Pavilion Care CenterCincinnati, OH 1 of 5Meadowbrook Care CenterCincinnati, OH 1 of 5Smoky Mountain Health And Rehabilitation CenterPigeon Forge, TN 1 of 5The Greens at GastoniaGastonia, NC 1 of 5Valley Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterTaylorsville, NC 1 of 5Weakley Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterDresden, TN 2 of 5Cedars Of Lebanon Care CenterLebanon, OH 2 of 5Clovernook Health Care And Rehabilitation CenterCincinnati, OH 2 of 5Louisville Gardens Care CenterLouisville, OH 2 of 5Ridgewood Living & Rehabilitation CenterWashington, NC 2 of 5Solon Pointe At Emerald RidgeSolon, OH 2 of 5The Greens at HickoryHickory, NC 2 of 5The Greens at LincolntonLincolnton, NC 2 of 5The Greens at ViewmontHickory, NC 2 of 5Willow Ridge Of NCRutherfordton, NC 3 of 5Flint Ridge Nrsg & Rehab CtrNewark, OH 3 of 5Lincoln Crawford Care CenterCincinnati, OH 3 of 5Meadow Wind Health Care CenterMassillon, OH 3 of 5Northcrest Rehab And Nursing CenterNapoleon, OH 3 of 5Pineville Rehabilitation and Living CenterPineville, NC 3 of 5Scarlet Oaks Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterCincinnati, OH 3 of 5The Greens at HendersonvilleHendersonville, NC 3 of 5The Greens at Pinehurst Rehabilitation & Living CePinehurst, NC 3 of 5The Greens at Spruce PinesSpruce Pine, NC 4 of 5Cedarview Care CenterLebanon, OH 4 of 5Sunrise Nursing Healthcare LLCAmelia, OH 4 of 5The Greens at Maple LeafStatesville, NC 4 of 5Twilight Gardens Nursing And RehabilitationNorwalk, OH 5 of 5Locust Ridge Healthcare LLCWilliamsburg, OH 5 of 5The Greens at CabarrusConcord, NC

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
BYNC HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/01/2022
STARLIGHT HEALTHCARE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 07/01/2022
BRADFORD, ALISAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 07/01/2022
JEREMIAS, BARUCHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2022
STERN, JACOBIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 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.

$15.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+6.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.8M
Related-party expense12% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 55%Medicare 19%Other / private 26%

This home reported $1.8M 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

$363per resident / day
operating cost
$11,031per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$386per 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 345221. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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