Avamere Rehabilitation Of Newport

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

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.

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.

67.4% 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 167 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.8% 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 80 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 52 beds and averages 39.7 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.46 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.34 is at or above 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.61 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below 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

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

22 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2025-08-08 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespread
  Provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing for meal service for 1 of 1 facility kitchen. This placed residents at risk for nutritional complications and adverse effects related to diabetic management. Findings include: A 1/30/25 Meal Time, Ticket Separation, and Dining Room memo directed CNAs and Dietary staff to communicate promptly when food or nursing staff assigned to assist with meals were delayed. The scheduled lunch start time was 11:30 AM.On 8/4/25 at 12:03 PM, Staff 8 (LPN) stated lunch was scheduled to be served at 11:30 AM in the main dining room and at 12:00 PM in other dining areas.On 8/4/25 at 12:38 PM the meal cart arrived at the North Hall Dining Room (dining room where residents received meal assistance).On 8/4/25 at 12:44 PM (74 minutes after the scheduled start of lunch service), the final hall meal cart arrived.On 8/7/25 at 10:41 AM, Staff 4 (Dietary Manager) acknowledged the kitchen was very late with meal service on 8/4/25. Staff 4 confirmed meals were routinely delayed one to two times…

  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 · Fcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  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 interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen environment and ensure adequate plumbing for the ice machine for 1 of 1 facility kitchen. This placed residents at risk for cross-contamination and food borne illnesses. Findings include:On 8/7/25 at 9:55 AM the following areas were observed in the kitchen:-A white painted cabinet door under the sink in the food preparation area had exposed wood and black marks around the door edge. When the cabinet door was rubbed, paint was easily removed. -The baseboard under a counter was detached from the cabinet. Black debris between the baseboard and the cabinet was visible and not accessible for cleaning. -The ice machine was directly plumbed from the outside with no one inch air gap. Under the ice machine was a metal plate attached to the floor. A one-inch-wide rim of black debris was observed around the metal plate on the floor.On 8/7/25 at 10:41 AM and 10:58 AM, Staff 4 (Dietary Manager) acknowledged there were a lot of uncleanable surfaces in the kitchen, the ice machine was not…

  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 · F2025-08-08 · tag F0847 — widespread
  Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were fully informed and understood the binding arbitration agreement for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for binding arbitration agreements. This placed residents at risk of being uninformed of their legal rights. Findings include:The facility's undated Patient and Facility Arbitration Agreement stated, the parties understand and agree that by entering this arbitration agreement they are giving up and waiving their constitutional right to have any claim decided in a court of law before a judge and jury. On 8/4/25 at 10:19 AM, Staff 16 (DNS) stated all residents had signed the Patient and Facility Arbitration Agreement. On 8/7/25 at 3:31 PM, Staff 1 (Administrator) stated the facility offered a Patient and Facility Arbitration Agreement to residents upon admission. Staff 1 stated Staff 14 (Medical Records Director) was responsible for the process of explaining the agreement to residents upon admission. On 8/7/25 at 3:39 PM, Staff 14 stated she was responsible to provide residents with information…

  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 · D2025-08-08 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident preferences were communicated for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#31) reviewed for choices. This placed residents at risk for lack of honored preferences. Findings include:Resident 31 was admitted to the facility in 5/2023 with diagnoses including stroke and aphasia (a disorder that impairs the ability to communicate).The 5/26/25 Annual MDS revealed Resident 31 had a BIMS assessment score of 13 (cognitively intact), was occasionally understood, and placed high importance on her/his bathing and bedtime preferences.A 5/29/25 revised care plan indicated Resident 31 required assistance from one staff member for bathing. No documented preferences regarding the resident's bathing or bedtime routine were identified.A 6/24/25 Social Services Quarterly Review indicated Resident 31 was cooperative with staff, exhibited no behavioral concerns, and the review was completed by Staff 16 (DNS).On 8/4/25 at 11:03 AM, Resident 31 communicated she/he preferred to sleep until 8:30 AM and was frequently awakened…

  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 · D2025-08-08 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician after holding blood pressure medications based on decreased blood pressure for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects to medications. Findings include:Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in 3/2025 with diagnoses including a cerebral infarction (stroke) and hypertension (high blood pressure).A review of physician orders revealed a 5/25/25 order for Metoprolol Tartrate (a medication to treat high blood pressure) 100 mg two times a day, notify MD for further instructions and hold if blood pressure is less than 100/55.A review of Resident 6's 7/2025 MAR revealed Metoprolol was held: 7/4/25 AM dose held due to a blood pressure of 98/48 7/6/25 AM dose held, no blood pressure charted in [DATE]/14/25 AM dose held due to a blood pressure of 84/47 7/15/25 AM dose held due to a blood pressure of 98/52 7/25/25 AM dose held due to a blood…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews it was determined the facility failed to provide nail care to dependent residents for 1 of 2 sampled dependent residents (#6) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for lack of dignity. Findings include: Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in 3/2025 with diagnoses including a cerebral infarction (stroke) and hemiplegia (paralysis) of the left side of the body.On 8/4/25 at 10:59 AM, Resident 6 stated her/his fingernails needed to be trimmed. Resident 6's fingernails were observed to be long, jagged, and dirty and her/his big toenails were observed to be long and jagged.On 8/7/25 at 11:13 AM, Staff 19 (CNA) stated residents received nail care on shower days. Staff 19 stated she completed nailcare for Resident 6 two weeks ago after a shower.On 8/7/25 at 2:40 PM Resident 6's fingernails and toenails were observed with Staff 3 (LPN Resident Care Manager). Resident 6's fingernails were observed to be long, jagged, and dirty and her/his big toenails were observed to long and jagged. Staff 3 stated the CNA staff were…

  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 · D2025-08-08 · 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

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor for changes in skin for 1 of 1 sampled resident (31) reviewed for choices. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment and unmet needs. Findings include: A 3/31/25 revised facility Wound Management Guideline revealed when a resident was identified to have a new skin alteration, the nurse was to obtain treatment orders, monitor the skin alteration, and document progress on the TAR.Resident 31 was admitted to the facility in 5/2023 with diagnoses including stroke and aphasia (a disorder that impairs the ability to communicate).The 5/26/25 Annual MDS indicated Resident 31 had a BIMS assessment score of 13 (cognitively intact), had no skin issues, and was sometimes difficult to understand.A 5/29/25 revised care plan revealed Resident 31 was at risk for skin impairment. Staff were to report changes regarding the resident's skin and identify potential causes.A review of the 6/2025 TAR revealed no new skin issues for Resident 31 during weekly skin audits.A 6/23/25 Late Entry 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolated
  Ensure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and 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, interview. and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan and provide ongoing behavioral health needs for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#46) reviewed for mood and behavior. This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral health needs and decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression.An 8/2/25 Progress Note revealed Resident 46 had suicidal ideations and was sent to the hospital for evaluation.An 8/3/25 Progress note revealed Resident 46 returned to the facility at approximately 2:00 AM and it was determined she/he was not at risk for imminent harm to her/himself or others.An 8/2/25 After Visit Summary indicated Resident 46 was not at risk for imminent harm to her/himself or others and Resident 46 declined completing a safety plan but agreed to complete a follow up call with Mental Health on 8/3/25.On 8/6/25 at 10:34 AM, Resident 46 stated she/he was not…

  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 · D2025-08-08 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolated
  Provide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain fasting serum blood sugars as ordered for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for uncontrolled blood sugars. Findings include: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 3/2025 with diagnoses including diabetes and diabetic neuropathy (nerve pain).The 3/25/25 hospital Orders at Discharge indicated Resident 5 was to receive daily insulin (medication used to manage blood sugar levels) injections and have Fasting Serum Blood Sugars (FSBS) monitored (a method used to measure blood glucose levels after a period without food).A 6/2/25 revised care plan indicated Resident 5's diabetic medication was to be monitored for side effects and effectiveness, and FSBS were to be completed as ordered.The 7/2025 and 8/2025 Diabetic Administration Records revealed no documented FSBS results for Resident 5.On 8/4/25 at 11:19 AM, Resident 5 stated she/he was a diabetic, received insulin, and expressed concern her/his FSBS were rarely monitored.On 8/6/25 at 12:30 PM,…

  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 · Fcited before2024-04-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure hair and beard restraints were worn during meal preparation for 1 of 1 sampled kitchen reviewed for sanitary food practices. This placed residents at risk for contaminated food. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Food Handling, revised 1/2018, revealed food and nutrition services staff were expected to wear hair restraints and beard nets. On 4/3/24 at 11:17 AM Staff 13 (Dietary Manager), Staff 14 (Cook) and Staff 15 (Cook) were observed preparing food in the kitchen without hair and beard restraints. Staff 13 indicated staff were told they were not required to wear hair restraints unless their hair was long, and were also told they were not required to wear beard restraints. On 4/3/24 at 11:47 AM Staff 13 acknowledged staff were to wear beard and hair restraints while working in the kitchen.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AVAMERE — 27 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 53 rows in the source record cover these 32 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.

11 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $883K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

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 OR