Marquis Piedmont Post Acute Rehab

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.

57.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 138 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 53.6% 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 56 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 70 beds and averages 46.9 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 6.20 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.85 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 5.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.47 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.14 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2026-04-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were secured for 2 of 3 medication carts and 2 of 3 treatment carts reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for unauthorized access to medications. Findings include:The facility's 5/2010 Security of Medication Cart Policy specified the following: -The nurse must secure the medication cart during the medication hall to prevent unauthorized entry. -Medication carts must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurse's view. 1. On 4/6/26 at 12:02 PM a treatment cart was observed to be unlocked on the North Hall. The nurse was not in view of the cart. The treatment cart contained multiple drawers with resident care items, including insulin and insulin supplies, prescribed creams and lotions, wound care supplies, nebulizer medications and supplies, and shampoos and other treatment supplies. On 4/6/26 at 12:04 PM Staff 10 (LPN) confirmed the cart was unlocked…

  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
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  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 assess residents for safe self-administration of medication for 1 of 2 sampled residents (# 29) reviewed for self-administering medication. This placed residents at risk for an unsafe medication regimen. Findings include:Resident 29 was admitted to the facility in 12/2025 with diagnoses including depression and end stage renal failure. Resident 29's 12/17/25 admission MDS assessed her/him as cognitively intact. On 4/6/26 at 11:47 AM and 1:19 PM observations were made of an empty six pack of Imodium on Resident 29's dresser to the right of her/his bed. On 4/6/26 at 2:34 PM observations were made of an empty six pack of Imodium on Resident 29's dresser to the right of her/his bed and a small clear plastic pill cup which contained two capsule pills and three small tablet pills on her/his window counter. On 4/7/26 at 1:50 PM observation was made of an empty six pack of Imodium on Resident 29's dresser to the right of her/his bed. On 4/8/26 at 8:39 AM three individual empty pill packs were observed…

  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 · D2026-04-10 · 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

  Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse for 1 of 1 (#11) sampled resident reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for continued physical abuse. Findings include: Resident 11 was admitted to the facility in 2024 with diagnoses including dementia and hearing deficit.Resident 11's 10/9/25 Quarterly MDS assessed her/him as cognitively intact and received anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication daily.Resident 36 admitted to the facility in 11/2025 with diagnoses including diabetes and visual deficit.Resident 36's 11/30/25 admission MDS assessed her/him as cognitively intact.On 3/29/26 Staff 21 (LPN) initiated a Resident-to-Resident Event Assessment for an incident involving Resident 11 and Resident 36. The assessment revealed Resident 11 reported asking Resident 36 to turn down the television volume and was punched in the face on 3/29/26 at 7:50 PM, resulting in Resident 11 obtaining a bloody nose. Staff 21 cleaned up Resident 11's face, assessed her/him for injury and found 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide notice of bed hold policies for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#4) reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for miscommunication of the discharge process. Findings include:Resident 4 was admitted to the facility in 2/2026 with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and epididymitis (inflammation of the tube at the back of the testicle). Resident 4's clinical record revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on 4/3/26 for evaluation and treatment related to swelling of the scrotum. The resident's provider was notified, and orders were received to send Resident 4 to the hospital for further evaluation. Resident 4's clinical record did not contain documentation to indicate a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to Resident 4 or her/his representative. On 4/10/26 at 11:30 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) stated the charge nurse was responsible for providing the bed hold policy to residents when they were sent to the hospital. Staff 2 stated there was no documentation…

  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 before2026-04-10 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#29) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unkept hygiene needs. Findings include: Resident 29 admitted to the facility in 12/2025 with diagnoses including diabetes and end stage renal failure.Resident 29's 12/17/25 admission MDS assessed her/him as cognitively intact.On 4/6/26 at 11:47 AM Resident 29 was observed with long pointed fingernails with dark substance under the nails. Resident 29 stated she/he required assistance to trim her/his fingernails due to her/his diabetes diagnosis. Resident 29 stated she/he would like her/his nails trimmed and had not been offered assistance.Record review of Resident 29's health record revealed no directions for staff to assist or offer to trim her/his fingernails and no documentation the fingernails had been completed.On 4/8/26 at 2:27 PM Staff 13 (CNA) stated he did not trim resident's fingernails if the resident was diabetic and only licensed nurses completed the task.On 4/8/26 at 2:29 PM Staff…

  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 · D2026-04-10 · 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

  Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide care planned safety interventions for 1 of 7 sampled residents (#25) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for falls and injury. Findings include:Resident 25 was admitted to the facility in 8/2024 with diagnoses of dementia and anxiety disorder. A 3/16/26 Quarterly MDS revealed Resident 25 had a BIMS of 14, which indicated she/he was cognitively intact. A 3/27/26 fall care plan revealed Resident 25 was at high risk for falls due to acute medical conditions, stroke and history of falls. Fall preventions included no assistive devices at bedside, bed in lowest position and fall mat at bedside. Random observations from 4/6/26 through 4/9/26 from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM revealed Resident 25 was observed in bed with her/his walker at bedside and within reach, the bed was not in the lowest position (approximately knee height), and no fall mat was in place.On 4/9/26 at 10:18 AM, Staff 17 (CNA) stated Resident 25 was a high fall risk and was to have no assistive devices at bedside,…

  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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0742 — isolated
  Provide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
  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 identify PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) triggers, provide treatment and services to address distress related to PTSD for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#5) reviewed for behavior health. This placed residents at risk for unrecognized triggers and increased or worsening PTSD related symptoms. Findings include:A 5/2019 Trauma Informed Care Policy indicated staff completed assessments to gather how trauma impacts the residents care needs in triggers, approaches and person-centered care planning, duration and frequency of problematic behaviors or changes in behavior, cognition, or mood. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including PTSD. A 3/23/26 admission MDS indicated Resident 5 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The Mood and Behavior CAA indicated the resident's psychosocial well-being would be addressed in her/his care plan with a goal of maintaining current…

  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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
  Provide or obtain dental services for each 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide dental services for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for dental care needs. This placed residents at risk for inadequate provision of dental services. Findings include: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 3/2026 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes.Resident 9's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed she/he was cognitively intact and had no missing, cracked or decayed teeth.Resident 9's 3/12/26 Nursing admission Assessment indicated she/he had, no dental issues.Resident 9's care plan dated 3/16/26 indicated she/he required constant supervision and physical assistance to complete oral hygiene tasks.On 4/6/26 at 2:33 PM, Resident 9 was observed to have several broken and missing upper front teeth. Resident 9 stated she/he was missing most of her/his upper teeth and had cavities which made it challenging and sometimes painful to chew. Resident 9 stated staff never examined 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop 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

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to accurately reflect the needs of residents for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#37) reviewed for nutrition and positioning. This placed residents at risk for receiving unneeded assistance. Findings include: Resident 37 was admitted to the facility in 5/2024 with diagnoses including stroke and a stage 4 pressure injury (a full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle). Resident 37's nutrition care plan, dated 5/3/24, and Restorative care plan, dated 6/3/24, indicated Resident 37 was at risk for nutritional deficits such as weight loss and decline in ROM to her/his hand. Interventions included: -1:1 total assistance for all meals and snacks. - Adaptive equipment was to be used including adaptive silverware, scoop plate, and an adaptive cup or coffee cup. - Staff were to put a splint in place in the resident's hand during the day for four hours, and at night, and were to to thoroughly wash and dry the resident's skin before splint application 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  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 enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed for 1 of 1 resident (#37) reviewed for EBP. This placed residents at risk for exposure to infections. Findings include: The facility's undated Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions policy indicated EBP were to be used for residents with catheters and complex wounds. The precautions included use of gloves and gowns while providing high contact care such as transfers, wound care, peri-care, and dressing assistance. Resident 37 was admitted to the facility in 5/2024 with diagnoses including stroke and stage 4 pressure injury (a complex wound). Resident 37's 5/3/24 care plan indicated she/he was at risk for infection due to a stage 4 pressure injury. Interventions included EBP. On 12/3/24 at 11:56 AM an observation of Resident 37's care revealed Staff 9 (CNA) and Staff 8 (NA) provided transfer assistance and personal hygiene without donning gowns. On 12/3/24 at 12:05 PM Staff 8 (NA) was unable to explain what EBP was…

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

  Infection Control 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 MARQUIS COMPANIES — 15 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 14 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.

This home reported $892K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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