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

Liberty Commons Rehabilitation Center

121 Racine Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403 · For profit - Corporation · 82 certified beds · (910) 452-4070 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (910) 452-4070 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citations on record (F0600, F0602) — most recent Mar 2025Resident-funds citation (F0565)2 actual-harm citations1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$30,608 in federal fines1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

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

Worth asking about
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Mar 2025
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
  • 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
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $30,608 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-18)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
201 Racine Dr · (910) 395-6050 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
5226 Sigmon Rd · (910) 392-2945 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
250 Racine Dr · (910) 228-5542 · Call to confirm hours
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 5 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating2★
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 increased4.6%15.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.3%7.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.2%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.8%2.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%5.9%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.2%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.7%18.3%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.3%21.3%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.9%94.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.5%5.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control26.5%20.7%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table12.9%14.0%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.6%1.4%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine84.1%78.1%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.6%22.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit14.8%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.651.781.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days3.081.801.80worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

58.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 178 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

58.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
64.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.45U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.21hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 64.4% 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 73 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 SNF58.0%CMS range 50.9–65.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.5%CMS range 7.1–14.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge64.4%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 discharge61.6%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 discharge61.6%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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 stay3.2%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 worsened1.1%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 hospitalization7.3%CMS range 4.3–10.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.051.02Oct 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

0.56
RN hours/ resident / day
0.82
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.93
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.30
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.43
RN hoursweekends
48.8%
Total nursing turnover
41.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 82 beds and averages 78.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.93 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 2.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.48 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-18)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-22)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2026-03-18 · 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 interviews with staff, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, and pest control specialist, the facility failed to ensure a resident's dignity was maintained when Resident #86 was observed by EMS personnel with multiple live cockroaches crawling on his body and in his bed prior to transferring the resident to the hospital. EMS personnel indicated the resident was not aware of the cockroaches. A reasonable person expects their dignity to be maintained by their caregivers and would have been traumatized and experienced feelings such as fear, dehumanization, humiliation, and anxiety. The deficient practice affected 1 of 2 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for dignity.Findings included:Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors, required a wheelchair for mobility and supervision with bathing and dressing. A nursing progress note…

    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
  • Actual harm · G2025-01-22 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff, Physician, and the Consultant Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to prevent significant medication errors by administering Resident #223 the incorrect dose of a blood pressure medication, Losartan 50 milligrams (an antihypertensive), and administering blood pressure medications without following the physician's ordered parameters to hold the medication (Residents #223 and #47). This resulted in Resident #223 experiencing hypotension (low blood pressure) and symptoms of head pressure, neck pain, and nausea. There was no significant outcome for Resident #47. This deficient practice occurred for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings Included. 1.) Resident #223 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #223 was cognitively intact. A physician's order dated 07/23/24 for Resident #223 revealed Losartan 50 milligram tablets. Give via PEG…

    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
  • Actual harm · G2023-11-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff and resident interviews the facility failed to notify the nurse when a resident refused to be transferred with a mechanical lift and two nurse aides decided to transfer the resident (Resident #2) by manually lifting the resident from the bed to the shower bed causing her to fracture her tibia for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral palsy (spastic paralysis causing impaired muscle coordination), osteoporosis (brittle and fragile bones), anxiety, vitamin D deficiency, contractures to left elbow and left wrist, and fracture of shaft of right tibia. A review of Resident #2's care plan updated 11/03/22 revealed a plan of care for at risk for falls related to resistance to getting out of bed and refusal of care of the mechanical lift. Requires a mechanical lift for all transfers out of bed with a goal that resident would not sustain serious injury over the next 90 days with…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · F2026-03-18 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespread
    Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
    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, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a pest free environment for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for pest control (Resident #86, Resident #16 and Resident#5). Findings included:Resident # 86 was admitted on [DATE].A review of Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors, required a wheelchair for mobility and supervision with bathing and dressing. A review of the pest control company's invoices from December showed that weekly services were provided. The invoices dated December 3 and December 17, 2025, indicated that rooms on the 100 and 200 halls were treated with an aerosol product; however, they did not document the reason for the treatment or provide details about the specific application. The invoice dated December 24, 2025, noted evidence of German cockroaches in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The invoices did not include documentation of staff reports regarding cockroach activity,…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-18 · 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 label and date opened food items in 1 of 1 walk in cooler and 1 of 1 walk-in freezer; failed to label, date, and discard expired food items stored on shelving in the kitchen; and failed to discard expired food items stored in 2 of 2 nourishment room refrigerators (100 and 300 hall nourishment rooms). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the safety of food served to residents.Findings included:a. An initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 3/9/26 at 10:50 AM in the presence of the Dietary Manager.- At 10:50 AM on 3/9/26 an opened plastic bag containing hard boiled eggs was observed in the kitchen walk in cooler undated.- At 10:55 AM on 3/9/26 an opened undated plastic bag of breadsticks and an opened plastic bag of shredded cheese with an opened date of 1/9/26 was observed in the walk-in freezer.An interview conducted with the Dietary Manager on 3/9/26 at 11:00 AM revealed that all food items were expected to be labeled and dated upon opening, and any expired items were to be discarded.…

    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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Nurse Practitioner, resident, and staff, the facility failed to protect a cognitively intact female resident's (Resident #2) right to be free of sexual abuse when another female resident (Resident #1), who was cognitively impaired entered Resident #2's room and got into the bed with Resident #2 on 2/25/25 at 6:19 am. While in the bed Resident #1 kissed Resident #2 on the face, touched Resident #1's breasts and placed her hand inside the front of Resident #2's brief and attempted to touch her vagina. Resident #2 yelled out and Resident #1 got out of the bed and left the room. Resident #2 stated she was scared at the time and was still upset that it happened but was no longer afraid. Resident #2 was initially afraid until she learned that it was Resident #1 in her bed and not a man. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff and the Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to comprehensively and effectively assess a resident's skin resulting in a delay in identifying and addressing a large, excoriated area (superficial wound or raw irritated patches with visible marks often caused by scratching, rubbing, or other mechanical trauma) behind the left knee of an immobile resident (Resident #25). The resident had a history of yeast developing in the folds of her skin. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. Findings included. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was cognitively intact. She exhibited no behaviors and had no rejection of care. She required extensive two-person assistance with activities of daily living. Her weight was 240 pounds. A care plan revised 12/19/24 revealed Resident #25 had the potential for impaired…

    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 · E2023-11-02 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to resolve repeat grievances that were reported to the resident council meetings for 3 of 3 months that resident council meetings were held (June 2023, July 2023, and September 2023). Findings included: The June 21, 2023, meeting minutes recorded by the Activity Director indicated concerns were expressed with dietary. The Resident Council stated meals were up to an hour late, were cold when received, and the food was overcooked and hard to chew. The June Grievance log listed no grievance dated 6/21/23 on behalf of the Resident Council related to the concerns expressed at the meeting regarding late meals, cold food and food that was overcooked and hard to chew. The July 31, 2023, meeting minutes recorded by the Activity Director indicated concerns were expressed with dietary. The Resident Council indicated meals were up to an hour late and were cold when received. Meals were served on Styrofoam trays instead of proper dinnerware. The council requested to meet with the Dietary Manager as soon as possible.…

    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 · E2023-11-02 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable for 6 of 6 residents (Resident #66, Resident #9, Resident #15, Resident # 45, Resident #55, Resident #30) reviewed for food palatability. Findings included: a). Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #66's 9/26/23 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated resident was cognitively intact. Interview on 10/30/23 at 11:53 AM with Resident #66 revealed the food was usually cold, he often could not tell what the meals were, and the food usually did not taste good A follow up interview with Resident #66 on 10/31/23 at 5:45 PM, Resident #66 stated it was frustrating when the food was not palatable. b). Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #9 ' s 9/18/23 quarterly MDS assessment indicated resident was cognitively intact. Interview with Resident #9 on 10/30/23 at 12:21 PM revealed the food was not prepared good and the meals did not look or…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — pattern
    Ensure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. a) Resident #332 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. MDS assessment revealed Resident #332 was moderately impaired. An interview was conducted on 11/01/23 at 8:20 AM with Dietary [NAME] #3. When asked about evening snacks, who offered or prepared them, and which halls received them, the cook said he was not sure about snacks and who provided them. He said as far as he knew the kitchen staff did not provide evening snacks to the nurses for residents who were diabetics. An interview was conducted on 11/01/23 at 11:40 AM with Nurse #3. Nurse #3 stated the meals were always delivered late, with an example of 10/30/23 dinner trays arriving on the 300 and 400 halls close to 8:00 PM. The nurse said up to that point she had been passing out crackers to hungry residents right and left. She said the 300 and 400 halls did not offer or provide diabetic residents with specific labeled evening snacks. An interview was conducted on 11/01/23 at 11:45 AM with Medication Technician (MT) #1. She said they did not offer or…

    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 · Ecited before2023-11-02 · 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 observation and staff interviews the facility failed to clean 1 of 3 ice machines used to provide ice for residents (300-400 hall ice machine). The findings include: An observation of an ice machine on 11/02/23 at 11:30 AM located in the nutrition room on the 300-400 hall revealed a black tinged substance located on the silver galvanized linear plate located inside the machine over the ice. This black substance was observed by the Maintenance Director. An interview was conducted on 11/02/23 at 11:35 AM with the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director stated the ice machine was last serviced and cleaned by their vendor on 07/18/23. He said nursing staff were supposed to clean out and wipe down the ice machine monthly and sign off on a log that the ice machine was wiped-out and cleaned, which they did not do. The Maintenance Director stated the ice machine needed to be consistently cleaned and sanitized to prevent mold or water borne pathogens from developing. The Maintenance Director stated the blackened substance he observed should not have been present inside the…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observations and staff interviews the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) program failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put in place following the recertification and complaint investigation survey completed on 7/15/22 and the recertification survey completed on 05/03/21. This was for three repeat deficiencies originally cited in the areas of accuracy of assessments (F641), Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals (F761), and Food Procurement, Store/Prepare/Serve - Sanitary (F812). The continued failure during two or more federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QA program. Findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F641: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately in the areas of 1) nutritional status (Resident #66), 2) skin conditions (Resident #88), and 3) urinary continence (Resident #86) for 3 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. During 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and the Administrator's interview, the facility failed to prevent a staff member from taking personal property from a resident's room (Resident #85) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. Findings included: Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 08/23/23. Admitting diagnoses included, in part, non-displaced fracture of left radius and fracture of nasal bones. The Minimum Data Set admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85 was cognitively intact. Resident #85's hearing and vision were adequate and he required limited assistance with one staff physical assistance with activities of daily living. An initial allegation report dated 08/07/23 was completed by the Administrator. The incident type was misappropriation of property. The facility became aware of the misappropriation of Resident #85's missing wallet at 1:45 PM. A summary of the allegation revealed Resident #85 stated a man came in his room and the resident woke up to…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately in the areas of 1) nutritional status (Resident #66), 2) skin conditions (Resident #88), and 3) urinary continence (Resident #86) for 3 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings included: 1). Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included in part: stroke with hemiparesis, dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), congestive heart failure, and diabetes. Review of Resident #66's electronic health record revealed a 1/28/22 physician order for low concentrated sweets diet regular texture with thin consistency liquids. Review of Resident #66's progress notes revealed a 8/16/23 registered dietician note, which indicated resident received a low concentrated sweets diet with double portions and had significant weight gain in the past 180 days. Review of Resident #66's weight summary indicated: 9/22/2023 210.0 8/2/2023 205.2 7/13/2023 201.0 6/1/2023…

    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 · D2023-11-02 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to discard expired bottles of medication that were stored in the Rehab medication cart for 1 of 3 medication carts inspected. Findings included: The Rehab medication cart was inspected on 11/02/23 at 9:25 AM with the Director of Nursing present and was found to have the following expired medications on the cart: 1. [NAME]-Vite supplement that had expired 10/23. 2. Sodium Chloride 1 gram that had expired 9/23. 3. Aspirin 325mg that had expired 10/23. 4. Travel Ease Meclizine 25mg that had expired 9/23. 5. Gas Relief 180 mg (Smethicone) that had expired 9/23. 6. Zinc 50 mg that had expired 10/23. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 11/02/23 at 9:30 AM she stated the cart had been inspected on 10/30/23 by a Medication Tech and nurse. She had expected any expired medications to be removed from the cart and destroyed.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    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 staff interviews, Hospice staff interviews and record review the facility failed to maintain communication and coordination of services provided by Hospice in the medical record for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Hospice services (Resident #70). The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnosis included cerebral infarction, hypertension, tachycardia, neurogenic bowel, and anemia. A Weekly Hospice note dated 08/04/23 for Resident #70 revealed Hospice Nurse (SN) visit for facility patient with diagnosis of hemiplegia following cerebral infarct affecting left side. Upon visit, the patient is in bed with head elevated. He is nonverbal and contracted in all extremities, with no signs or symptoms of pain or distress. He does blink and occasionally will track with his eyes when spoken to. He is frail and his skin is fragile and has an air mattress in use. Foam boots on feet. His trach is intact, with clear frothy sputum noted on gown, with tube feeding infusing, and his…

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

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2025-01-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations and staff interviews the facility, 1a) failed to remove black greenish substance from the commode base caulking in resident rooms (106,112, 214, 220, 303, and 410), 1b) failed to replace resident's missing florescent overbed light covers in rooms (201A, 201B, 203A, 203B, 207A, 207B, 208A, 208B, 212A, 212B, 214A, 214B, and 215B). These failures occurred on 4 of 4 hallways (100, 200, 300, and 400 Hall) observed for a safe, clean, homelike environment. Findings included: 1a. An initial observation on 01/08/25 at 8:10 AM revealed resident commodes (Rooms: 106, 112, 214, 220, 303, and 410) were noted to have black greenish substance located around the base of the commodes. An interview was conducted on 01/08/25 at 2:00 PM with the Housekeeping Supervisor. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated her staff was responsible for sweeping and mopping residents' rooms daily and the Maintenance Department was responsible for caulking and removing black greenish substances from commode bases. 1b. A follow-up observation on 01/09/25 at 7:30 AM with the Maintenance Director…

    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 plan 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

$30,608 in federal fines across 3 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • $9,620 — penalty dated 2026-03-18
  • $9,620 — penalty dated 2025-01-22
  • $11,368 — penalty dated 2023-11-02
  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-12-01 for 14 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING — 37 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 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.1-1.1 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.2+0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
1 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWhiteville, NC 1 of 5Louisburg Healthcare & Rehabilitation CenterLouisburg, NC 1 of 5Mary Gran Nursing CenterClinton, NC 1 of 5Oak Forest Health and RehabilitationWinston-Salem, NC 1 of 5Woodhaven Nursing CenterLumberton, NC 2 of 5Highland House Rehabilitation and HealthcareFayetteville, NC 2 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ofBenson, NC 2 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterSanford, NC 2 of 5Pavilion Health Center at BrightmoreCharlotte, NC 2 of 5Pinehurst Healthcare & Rehabilitation CenterPinehurst, NC 2 of 5Pisgah Manor Health Care CenterCandler, NC 2 of 5Roxboro Healthcare & Rehab CenterRoxboro, NC 2 of 5Royal Park Rehabilitation & Health CenterMatthews, NC 2 of 5The Foley Center at Chestnut RidgeBlowing Rock, NC 2 of 5The OaksWinston-Salem, NC 3 of 5Bermuda Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAdvance, NC 3 of 5Elizabethtown Healthcare & Rehab CenterElizabethtown, NC 3 of 5Liberty Commons Nsg and Rehab Ctr of Rowan CountySalisbury, NC 3 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehab Center of SouthporSouthport, NC 3 of 5Shoreland Health Care and Retirement Center IncWhiteville, NC 3 of 5Silver BluffCanton, NC 3 of 5Southwood Nursing and RetirementClinton, NC 3 of 5Summerstone Health and Rehabilitation CenterKernersville, NC 3 of 5Warren Hills Nursing CenterWarrenton, NC 4 of 5Briar Creek Health CenterCharlotte, NC 4 of 5Capital Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterRaleigh, NC 4 of 5Inn at Quail Haven VillagePinehurst, NC 4 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ofBurlington, NC 4 of 5Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterWeldon, NC 4 of 5Liberty Healthcare Services of Golden Years NursinFalcon, NC 4 of 5The Preserve At Fairfield GladeCrossville, TN 4 of 5Three Rivers Health and Rehabilitation CenterWindsor, NC 4 of 5Westfield Rehabilitation and Health CenterSanford, NC 4 of 5Woodlands Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterFayetteville, NC 5 of 5Parkview Health and Rehabilitation CenterChapel Hill, NC 5 of 5Yadkin Nursing and Care CenterYadkinville, 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
MCNEILL, JOHNIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 03/16/2006
MCNEILL, RONALDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 03/16/2006
CALCUTT, JOSEPHIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2010
DUFF, CHARLESIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 03/04/2019
WILSON, JEFFREYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 11/18/1994
PURIFOY, PENNYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2008
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/18/1994
BORK, MATTHEWIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/29/2007
HAMRIC, ANTHONYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/24/2005

CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$11.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+7.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.4M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 48%Medicare 13%Other / private 39%

This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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

$310per resident / day
operating cost
$9,412per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$335per 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 345468. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-18, 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