Abingdon Health & Rehab Center
15051 Harmony Hills Lane, Abingdon, VA 24211 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (276) 451-2590 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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 (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 9.8% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.9% | 18.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.6% | 15.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.4% | 20.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.2% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.2% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.3% | 73.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.2% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.9% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.08 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 1.48 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 304 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.5% 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 159 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 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 | 61.0%CMS range 56.1–66.5 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 9.4–14.6 | 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 | 46.5% | 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 | 51.6% | 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 | 40.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 4.2–9.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 120 beds and averages 115.6 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-07 · 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 observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility kitchen. The findings included: The facility staff stacked (nested) wet chafing pans together after washing. On 8/05/24 at 7:00 PM, the surveyor observed a shelving unit with multiple stacks of stacked (nested) small chafing pans. At the surveyor's request, Dietary Staff Member (DSM) #1 separated individual pans from three separate stacks and found water droplets between pans in each stack. DSM #1 stated staff would wash the pans again. On 8/06/24 at 4:48 PM, the survey team met with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the Clinical Services Specialist and discussed the concern of dietary staff nesting wet pans. On 8/07/24 at 9:54 AM, surveyor received a Staff In-service Education form dated 8/06/24 which read in part Reviewed Policy #FN.501 .air drying pot/pans/dishes after washing cycle - no wet nesting . which was signed by nine staff members. Surveyor received…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 staff interviews, clinical record review, and document review, facility staff failed to ensure provider ordered medications were administered for 1 of 23 current residents sampled. (Resident #31) The findings were: For Resident #31, facility staff failed to administer the resident four (4) doses of provider ordered Gabapentin in May 2024. Resident #31's diagnoses included but were not limited to Coalworker's Pneumoconiosis. Section C (cognitive patterns) of the minimum data set with an assessment reference date of 06/20/24 coded the resident's brief interview for mental status as 14 out of 15 points. Resident #31's clinical record contained an order for Gabapentin 600 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth four times a day for neuropathy began on 11/07/23 and was scheduled to be administered at midnight, 6:00 a.m., noon, and 6:00 p.m. daily. The medication administration record (MAR) for May 2024 indicated four doses of Gabapentin were not administered between 05/19/24 and 05/21/24: 1. 05/19/24 noon dose, 2. 05/19/24 6:00 p.m. dose, 3. 05/20/24 6:00 p.m. dose, and 4. 05/21/24 midnight…
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 before2018-12-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. The facility staff failed to ensure that milk was discarded after the use by date on 1 of 3 units on the facility. On 12/06/18 at 10:00 am, the surveyor observed 4 cartons of strawberry milk with the date [DATE] in the unit refrigerator on the Art unit that was available for distribution. On 12/06/18 at 10:15 am, the surveyor showed the facility administrator the 4 cartons of strawberry milk dated [DATE] that had been observed in the unit refrigerator on the Art unit. The facility administrator observed the 4 cartons of strawberry milk and agreed that it was in the unit refrigerator past printed use by date. On 12/06/18 at 10:38 am, the surveyor spoke with the dietary services manager and the director of nutrition services. The dietary services manager stated that the 4 cartons of strawberry milk had been discarded and she does not know where the 4 cartons of strawberry milk came from. The facility policy on Food and Supply Storage contained documentation that included but was not limited to, . Refrigerated…
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 · D2018-12-06 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 facility document review, facility staff failed to provide personal privacy while providing care for 1 of 27 Residents in the survey sample (Resident #16). The findings included: The facility staff failed to provide privacy for Resident #16 while receiving ADL care in the shower room. Resident # 16 was a [AGE] year-old- female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to: dementia, major depressive disorder, anemia, and osteoarthritis. The clinical record for resident # 16 was reviewed on 12/6/18 at 10:32 am. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment for Resident # 16 was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/21/18. Section C of the MDS assesses cognitive patterns. In Section C0500, the facility staff documented that Resident # 16 had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 10 out of 15, which indicated that Resident # 16's cognitive status was moderately impaired. The plan of…
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 · D2018-12-06 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide a copy of the comprehensive care plan goals to the receiving facility for 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample (Resident #61). The findings included: The facility staff failed to provide a copy of the comprehensive care plan goals to the receiving facility for Resident #61. Resident #61 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses of, but not limited to coronary artery disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, and seizure disorder. On the significant change MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 11/7/18, the resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 3 out of a possible score of 15. Resident #61 was also coded as requiring extensive assistance of 2 or more staff members for dressing, personal hygiene and bathing. The surveyor performed a review of Resident #61's clinical…
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 · D2018-12-06 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 staff interview, and clinical record review, facility staff failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident or resident's representative for 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample (Resident #61). The findings included: The facility staff failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident or resident's representative for Resident #61. Resident #61 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses of, but not limited to coronary artery disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, and seizure disorder. On the significant change MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 11/7/18, the resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 3 out of a possible score of 15. Resident #61 was also coded as requiring extensive assistance of 2 or more staff members for dressing, personal hygiene and bathing. The surveyor performed a review of Resident #61's…
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 · D2018-12-06 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, and clinical record review, facility staff failed to provide written information concerning bed hold policy to the resident or resident's representative for 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample (Resident #61). The findings included: The facility staff failed to provide a written notice to the resident or resident's representative concerning a bed hold for Resident #61. The resident was discharged from the facility due to being admitted to the hospital. Resident #61 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses of, but not limited to coronary artery disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, and seizure disorder. On the significant change MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 11/7/18, the resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 3 out of a possible score of 15. Resident #61 was also coded as requiring extensive assistance of 2 or more…
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 · D2018-12-06 · 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 staff interview, and clinical record review, facility staff failed to accurately code the resident's status for 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample (Resident #115). The findings included: Resident #115 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was an entry MDS (Minimum Data Set) completed when the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and then the next MDS that was completed was dated 9/20/18 when the resident was discharged from the facility. During the closed record review, the surveyor noted a progress note that was dated and timed for 9/20/18 at 11:33 am that read in part, Patient discharged home with son . The surveyor reviewed the discharged MDS with ARD (Assessment Reference Set) of 9/20/18. Under Section A2100, the MDS was coded that the resident was discharged to the hospital. On 12/06/18 at 10:26 am, the surveyor notified RN (registered nurse) #1 of the above documented findings. RN #1 stated, I will go on there and get this corrected. The interim administrator, director of…
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 · D2018-12-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility record review, the facility staff failed to store medications in a secured, locked medication cart for 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample (Resident #60). The findings included: Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses of, but not limited to anemia, heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. On the quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 11/1/18, the resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 12 out of a possible score of 15. Resident #60 was also coded as requiring extensive assistance of 1 staff member for personal hygiene and being totally dependent on 1 staff member for bathing. During the medication administration observation on 12/6/18 at 8:45 am, the surveyor observed LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1 leaving Lasix 60 mg tablets on the top of the medication cart. LPN #1 walked completely in Resident #60's…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-08-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for 6 of 23 residents, Residents #100, 101, 115, 263, 36, and 57. The findings include: 1. For Resident #100, the facility staff failed to complete a preliminary consent to treat form in the residents clinical record. Resident #100's diagnoses included muscle wasting/atrophy and diabetes. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #100's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/06/24 included a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a possible 15 points. The clinical record included the following documents. Provider order dated 01/30/24 for a full code. A signed preliminary consent to treat and assignment of benefits form dated 01/30/24. The area that referenced the residents Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and advance directive status had not been completed. On 08/06/24 at 2:40 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Admissions this staff confirmed part of this form was incomplete. 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.
“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 COMMONWEALTH CARE OF ROANOKE — 12 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BDSHEFFER LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2017 |
| DJ PETRINE LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2017 |
| GOODALL, LURY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2017 |
| STALLARD, PATRICIA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2017 |
| TUCKER, DAVID | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2017 |
| PETRINE, DEBORAH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/09/2010 |
| PETRINE, JAMES | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/22/2010 |
| SHEFFER, BRADY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/22/2010 |
| ALESANTRINO, JOE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| COMMONWEALTH CARE OF ROANOKE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/06/2012 |
| OSBORNE, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2017 |
| REHNBORG, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2010 |
| SMITH, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2024 |
| M&T BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/05/2009 |
| QUALITY CARE REHAB INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| HUFFMAN, CHRISTI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| NICKELS, CHRISTINA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/04/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 17 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.
5 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 $834K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 VA
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 Virginia 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 495409. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-07, 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.