Westwood Hills Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
1016 Fletcher Street, Wilkesboro, NC 28697 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 176 certified beds · (336) 667-9261 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0604, F0607) — most recent May 2026
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 28% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.0% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.9% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.0% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.9% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.2% | 18.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.3% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.9% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.1% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.7% | 78.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.8% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.74 | 1.78 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.96 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
40.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 69 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% 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 30 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 40.1%CMS range 31.9–49.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.6–16.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 60.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 56.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not 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 discharge | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 9.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.4%CMS range 3.9–14.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 176 beds and averages 114.2 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 62 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.34 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-05-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record review, observations, and interviews with residents, facility staff, the Nurse Practitioner, and Psychiatric Provider, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from resident-to-resident abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2) on 4/30/26. Resident #2 sustained a left hip fracture and a left olecranon (elbow) fracture. The findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial assistance for toileting, dressing and showers. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included a fall with traumatic brain injury (TBI), Paranoid Schizophrenia and dementia. Review of annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired, independent for mobility, required moderate assistance with toileting and bathing.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-07-25 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 protect Resident #87 from physical restraint from Nurse Aide (NA #1). NA #1 grabbed Resident #87's wrists when the resident became combative during incontinent care and Resident #87 hit NA #1. Resident #87 was cognitively impaired and resided on the dementia care unit. Resident #87 had three skin tears the size of a half dollars to the left wrist, right elbow, and right arm and two bruises the size of tennis balls to bilateral lower forearms and wrists. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #87). The findings included: Resident #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with agitation and anxiety disorder. Resident #87's admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was severely cognitively impaired with no psychosis, rejection of care, or instances of wandering. Resident #87 was coded as having other behavioral symptoms not directed…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-07-25 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 reviews, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to remove Nurse Aide (NA) #1 from a resident care assignment after Nurse #1 witnessed the NA holding both of Resident #87's wrists to prevent the resident from hitting him when the resident became combative during care. In addition, the facility failed to identify, thoroughly investigate, and to report abuse to the state agency, Adult Protective Services, and local law enforcement for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #87) reviewed for abuse. The findings included A review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy revised 03/10/17 revealed: Allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property and injuries of unknown origin will be investigated by the facility. The Administrator is responsible to direct the investigation process and to ensure that appropriate agencies are notified, as directed. The policy also dictated that the Administrator 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-19 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect 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 reviews and interviews with resident, staff, Pharmacy Manager and the Medical Director, the facility failed to implement effective systems to safeguard a resident's controlled medication from misappropriation (30 tablets of oxycodone 15 milligrams) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for misappropriation of property (Resident #22).The findings included:Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain syndrome.Review of Resident #22's physician orders dated 10/30/24 revealed an order for oxycodone15 mg by mouth every six hours for pain.Review of Resident #22's Medication Administration Record for 08/2025 revealed he was given oxycodone 15 mg by mouth every six hours as ordered.Review of a pharmacy packing slip revealed Resident #22's oxycodone 15 mg /120 tablets were delivered to the facility on [DATE] and were counted in by Nurse #3 and Nurse #4. The packing slip indicated the count was correct.Review of Resident #22's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove 63 expired nutritional shakes from their dry storage area which resulted in 3 of the expired nutritional shakes making it to the service line and prepared for service to residents.The findings included:An observation made of the facility's dry storage area on 11/16/25 at 9:50 AM revealed 48 mixed berry flavored nutritional supplement shakes with an expiration date of 08/01/25 and 18 vanilla flavored nutritional shakes, with an expiration date of 06/20/25, sitting in the dry storage room on the top shelf.A follow-up observation of the kitchen, completed on 11/18/25 at 12:21 PM revealed the 48 mixed berry nutritional supplements with an expiration date of 08/01/25 to still be on the shelf in the dry storage area. However, there were only 15 vanilla flavored nutritional supplements with an expiration date of 06/20/25 in the dry storage area.An observation of the tray service line on 11/18/25 at 12:25 revealed 3 vanilla flavored nutritional shakes with an expiration date of 06/20/25 to be in an ice bin on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, facility policy, Center for Disease Control guidance, Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology (SPICE) representative, local health department, and staff interviews the facility failed to identify the need for and implement broad based testing during a Covid-19 outbreak when the interventions implemented failed to halt transmission of Covid-19 which spread to 2 of 5 hallways (100 and 200) and affected 11 residents on the 100 hall and 1 resident on the 200 hall (Resident #97). The findings included: Guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website updated 03/18/24 read in part, Responding to a newly identified SARS-CoV-2 infected health care personnel or resident: the approach to an outbreak investigation could involve either contract tracing or a broad-based approach; however a broad based (e.g., unit, floor, or other specific area (s) of the facility) approach is preferred if all potential contracts cannot be identified or managed with contract tracing or if…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a residents (Resident #92) code status election was accurate throughout the medical record for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for advance directives. The findings included: Resident #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #92 was severely cognitively impaired. A care plan last revised on 07/16/24 read: End of Life/Advance Directive and contained the following interventions Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation/Full Code. A physician order dated 08/12/24 read: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Nurse #1 was interviewed on 08/21/24 at 9:17 AM. She stated that code status election was done upon admission with the resident and family and then discussed at each care plan meeting. If the resident or family wished to change the advance directive then she would get help from the Unit Manager (UM) at getting the new forms completed, obtaining the physician order, and updating the care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, family, staff, and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to prescribe an antibiotic that would effectively treat a urinary tract infection (Resident #29) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #29 was severely cognitively impaired and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. A urinalysis laboratory report dated 08/17/24 indicated that Resident #29 was positive for greater than 100,000 bacteria and the culture report attached indicated that it was resistant to Ciprofloxacin (Cipro is an antibiotic). The report was signed by the Nurse Practitioner. Resident #29's family member was interviewed on 08/18/24 at 11:55 AM. The family member stated that Resident #29 had recently had 2 falls and the staff thought she may have a urinary tract infection and the medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of medications (Resident #85), discharge (Resident #101) and restraints (Resident #27) for 3 of 21 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The findings included: 1. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included non-traumatic brain dysfunction. A review of Resident #85's physician orders dated 05/26/23 revealed an order for Zoloft (antidepressant) 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth once a day for anxiety. A review of Resident #85's Medication Administration Record for 06/2023 revealed the Resident received the Zoloft 50 mg by mouth at 5:00 PM every day of the month. A review of Resident #85's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was not coded as receiving an antidepressant in the look back period. An interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #1 on 07/11/23 at 2:50 PM who explained that she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to remove expired medications from 2 of 5 medications carts reviewed for medication storage (Yellow Hall and Orange Hall). The findings included: 1a. An observation of Yellow Hall medication cart was conducted on 07/09/23 at 2:15 PM along with Medication Aide (MA) #1. The observation revealed an open bottle of Calcium 250 milligrams (mg) with Vitamin D3 that expired on 06/23 that was on the medication cart and available for use. The observation further revealed an open bottle of Atropine 1% (used to dry secretions) that expired 02/23 on the medication cart available for use. An interview was conducted with MA #1 on 07/09/23 2:21 PM and revealed that she generally worked on the Blue Hall Medication cart and the Yellow Hall medication cart was not her normal medication cart to work. She stated that she was here about two to three weeks ago and the pharmacy had gone through the Blue Hall medication cart, but she was not sure that they had gone through the Yellow Hall medication cart. She added that MA #2 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-25 · tag F0837 — isolatedEstablish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the administration, and governing body failed to ensure the facility followed their abuse policies and procedures when a corporate nurse consultant stated the facility did not need to complete a 24 hour or 5 working day report to the state agency after a nurse aide grabbed a resident (Resident #87) by the wrists during incontinence care resulting in three skin tears the size of a half dollars to the left wrist, right elbow, and right arm and two bruises the size of tennis balls to bilateral lower forearms and wrists. The findings included: Resident #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with agitation and anxiety disorder. Resident #87's admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was severely cognitively impaired with no psychosis, rejection of care, or instances of wandering. Resident #87 was coded as having other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others (physical symptoms…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-25 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the annual recertification survey that occurred on 12/16/21. This failure was for 1 deficiency originally cited in the area of Resident Assessment (F641). The repeat deficiency during two surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QA program. The findings included: This tag is cross referred to: F641: Based on observation, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of medications (Resident #85), discharge (Resident #101), and restraints (Resident #27) for 3 of 21 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. During the recertification survey on 12/16/21 the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set assessment to reflect a resident received dialysis therapy, this was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. During…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE — 40 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 39 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOICE, GALE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/05/2018 |
| JOHNSON, DIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2011 |
| PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, ROGER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| CORDER, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2025 |
| HILL, RAYMOND | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
| HILL, STEPHEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 28% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345205. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-19, 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.