Wilson Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
403 Crestview Avenue, Wilson, NC 27893 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 108 certified beds · (252) 237-0724 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (25% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- about 22% 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 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 | 12.2% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.8% | 5.9% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 0.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.2% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.0% | 21.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.8% | 5.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.5% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.8% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.7% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.59 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.8% 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 172 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.0% 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 76 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 70% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.8%CMS range 54.6–68.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 8.4–14.3 | 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 | 54.0% | 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 | 55.3% | 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 | 60.5% | 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 | 85.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 5.8% | 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 | 8.6%CMS range 5.0–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 108 beds and averages 101.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% 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 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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 Responsible Party (RP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 10055- Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advanced Beneficiary Notification (ABN) and Form 10123-Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) when the facility initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted. This was for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #31) reviewed for beneficiary notice protection. Findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] under Medicare Part A covered skilled services. Resident #31's Medicare Part A covered skilled services ended on 1/22/25. He remained in the facility. A review of Resident #31's medical record revealed no evidence Resident #31 was provided with a CMS SNF-ABN and a CMS NOMNC form. On 4/8/25 at 1:49 PM an interview with the Business Office Manager (BOM) indicated Resident #31's Medicare Part A covered skilled services began on 11/20/24. She stated when these covered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · 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 2. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease. A review of a Physician order dated 3/12/25 revealed an order for Resident #46 to receive dialysis Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at an offsite dialysis clinic. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was not coded for dialysis. In an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 4/9/25 at 11:39 am she stated she was aware Resident #46 received dialysis. The interview further revealed that the MDS Coordinator routinely reviewed hospital discharge summaries and coded the MDS based on the reviews. The MDS Coordinator stated Resident #46 should have been coded for dialysis on the 3/13/25 MDS and the failure to do so had been an oversight. In an interview with the Administrator on 4/9/25 at 3:06 pm he stated the MDS completed on 3/13/25 should have captured that Resident #46 received dialysis. Based on record review and staff and Responsible Party interviews, the facility failed to accurately code…
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 · D2025-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 implement their infection control practices and procedures when the facility Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) failed to don a gown before entering the room of a resident on Contact Precautions. The facility also failed to implement their policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when Nurse #1 failed to wear a gown before entering a resident's room to provide medications via a gastrostomy tube (tube inserted directly into the stomach through a small hole in the abdomen to administer hydration, nutrition and medication). The deficient practice occurred for 2 of 20 staff (SDC and Nurse #1) observed for infection control practices. Findings included: 1. Review of the facility policy titled Contact Precautions dated 4/2023 and revised on 6/13/24 stated in part: contact precaution recommendations include wearing a gown when entering room and caring for the resident. Review of the signage on the door to Resident #36's room read in part, Contact precautions, everyone must: wear a gown when entering 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 · Ecited before2024-03-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to dry dishes individually by nesting (stacking dishes/utensils of the same size without an air gap) 4 deep dish pans and 2 large metal mixing bowls, while still wet, on the drying rack for 1 of 3 kitchen observations. Findings included: During observation on 3/3/24 at 10:24 AM 4 deep dish pans and 2 large metal mixing bowls were observed nested on the drying rack. Upon requesting Dietary [NAME] #1 to remove the top dish, water was visible on the surfaces of the dishes nested together. During an interview on 3/3/24 at 10:24 AM Dietary [NAME] #1 stated the 4 deep dish pans, and 2 large metal mixing bowls were left over from last night to dry on the drying rack. She did not know why they had been nested in each other. Upon observing the stack of deep-dish pans and large metal mixing bowls, and separating them, she stated the dishes were still wet from last night because they were nested. She further stated staff should not nest dishes that were drying because moisture could be trapped and could cause contamination. 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-06 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet 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 observation and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint surveys of 8/27/21 and 2/16/23. This was for a recited deficiency in the area of Food and Nutrition Services (F812). The continued failure during three federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F812: Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to dry dishes individually by nesting (stacking dishes/utensils of the same size without an air gap) 4 deep dish pans and 2 large metal mixing bowls, while still wet, on the drying rack for 1 of 3 kitchen observations. During the recertification and complaint survey of 8/27/21 the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen by: 1. failing to ensure the dishwasher was rinsing dishes at the correct temperature to sanitize…
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 · D2024-03-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise the care plan to reflect the discontinuation of hospice care. This was for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for hospice and end of life care. Findings included: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #30 dated 12/15/23 revealed he was not receiving hospice care. A review of Resident #30's care plan dated last revised on 12/28/23 revealed in part a focus area initiated on 9/5/23 and last revised on 12/27/23 for hospice care. The goal was for Resident #30 to be free from pain through the next review. An intervention was spiritual care consult. On 3/4/24 at 2:40 PM an interview with Nurse #1 indicated she was the resource nurse. She stated Resident #30 had been receiving hospice care, but this had been discontinued on 12/8/23. On 3/4/24 at 3:04 PM an interview with MDS Nurse #1 indicated she completed Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-02-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to (1) label foods items with an open and expiration date and discard expired food items stored for use in 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerator for 1 of 2 kitchen observations and (2) label food items with an open and expiration date stored for use in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer. These practices had the potential to affect food served to 99 of the 99 residents. Finding included: 1. On 2/13/2023 at 9:48 a.m. in the initial tour of the kitchen accompanied by Dietary Manager (DM), the following items were observed in the walk-in refrigerator: Two containers of frozen solid puree bacon in a box with no date indicating when opened or an expiration date. The Dietary Manager discarded the item. A large, opened container of ranch buttermilk dressing dated open 12/1/2022. There was no expiration date on the manufacture's label or the container. The Dietary Manager stated opened containers of dressing expired one month after opening and discarded the ranch buttermilk dressing. An unopened 12-pack of boiled eggs indicating no…
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 · Fcited before2023-02-16 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet 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 and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint survey of 8/27/21. The deficiencies are in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments (641), Accidents (689), Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals (761), and Food Procurement (812). The continued failure during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F641: Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for isolation (Resident #243), use of a wander guard (Resident #6), for dementia (Resident #58) and discharge status (Resident #90) for 4 of 25 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. During the recertification and complaint survey of 8/27/21, the facility was cited for accurately coding an admission…
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 · D2023-02-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 resident, family and staff interviews the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect by speaking harshly to her and asking the resident if she had been playing in her poop for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #346). Findings included: Resident #346 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of hypertensive chronic kidney disease Stage 5 and a history of falls. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #346 had moderately impaired cognition. She required extensive assistance from staff with toileting. She was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 02/10/23 for Resident #346 included, in part, the following focal area: At risk for unmet needs and/or compromised dignity. The goals for Resident #346 were to maintain dignity and have decreased episodes of anxiety. Interventions included, in part, to talk with resident in a low pitch, calm voice. In an interview with Resident #346 on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-16 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice and CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (Resident #65) and failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (Resident #15) prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review. The findings included: 1. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #65's Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 12/9/22. She remained in the facility. Record review revealed that Resident #109 was not given the CMS-10555 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF-ABN) or CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). During an interview with the Business Office Manager on 2/13/23 at 3:04 PM she reported she was unable to locate the required forms for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-16 · 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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for isolation (Resident #243), use of a wander guard (Resident #6), diagnosis of dementia (Resident #58) and discharge status (Resident #90) for 4 of 25 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings included: 1. Resident #243 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Nursing documentation dated 1/30/2023 at 9:37 p.m. revealed the physician and the Resident #243's representative was notified Resident #243 tested positive for COVID-19. Resident #243's care plan dated 1/30/2023 included a focus for an infection related to COVID-19 that was resolved on 2/13/2023. Physician notes dated 1/31/2023 indicated Resident #243 was diagnosed with COVID-19. An infection note documented in Resident #243's medical record dated 1/31/2023 at 9:40 a.m. indicated the day of onset for COVID-19 was 1/30/23, and the type of transmission based precautions (isolation) required was contact and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview and record review the facility failed to implement interventions for fall prevention for a resident with a history of falls for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #346). Findings included: Resident #346 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included falls, osteoarthritis, and restless leg syndrome. Review of a health status note written on 01/31/23 at 12:52 AM documented: PT [Physical Therapy] walked past resident's room and found resident on the bathroom floor . [Resident #346 was] reeducated to use call bell when needing to ambulate, to lock (wheelchair) when transferring, and to wear non-skid footwear. Quality Assurance-Falls Review (at risk for or actual) dated 2/2/23 was reviewed and documented Resident #346 had a fall on 01/03/23. Resident had non-skid (gripper) socks to feet when she fell. She was reminded to call for assistance. Interventions included to place call bell within reach, place bed in lowest position, and continue…
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 · D2023-02-16 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such 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 observation, resident interview, family interview, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a lunchtime meal to a dialysis resident on 02/01/23, 02/03/23, 02/06/23, 02/08/23, 02/10/23 and 02/13/23 for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident #346). Findings included: Resident #346 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertensive chronic kidney failure Stage 5. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #346 had moderately impaired cognition. She received hemodialysis. In an interview with Resident #346 on 02/14/23 at 2:30 PM she stated she had not gotten a lunch meal either at the facility or boxed to go since her admission on [DATE]. She reported she went to dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. She explained her chair time at dialysis was 11:30 and she was usually transported between 10:30 and 11:00 each dialysis day. She reported her family had told staff she was not receiving a…
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 · D2023-02-16 · 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 observation and staff interviews the facility failed to keep medications secured by storing opened and unlabeled medications in four different medications cups in the medication cart on the 600 hall for 1 of 2 medication carts inspected. Findings included: An inspection of the 600 hall medication cart on 02/16/23 at 9:45 AM revealed four separate medications cups stored in a drawer on the cart that contained the following unlabeled items: a cup containing 9 pills, a cup of a white liquid, a cup with brown applesauce, and a cup of clear gel. In an interview with Medication Aide #1 on 02/16/23 at 9:45 AM she stated she had opened some of the medications to administer to a resident who refused to take the medications at that time. She reported the resident had told her he was going to the store and would be back in a minute. She stated she finished opening the rest of the medications due at that time and placed the unlabeled mediations in the drawer to administer when the resident returned. She was not able to identify the pills in the cup without looking at the Medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
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 | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 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 |
| KELLY, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/16/2013 |
| 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 |
| SIDANA, LALITA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 345372. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, 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.