Goodwin House Alexandria
4800 Fillmore Ave, Alexandria, VA 22311 · Non profit - Church related · 80 certified beds · (703) 824-1192 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 | 5.8% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 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 | 4.5% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.1% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.5% | 20.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.6% | 21.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.2% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.7% | 73.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.9% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.55 | 1.52 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.74 | 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.
57.7% 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 106 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 50 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 57.7%CMS range 52.0–66.9 | 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 | 11.9%CMS range 8.7–16.1 | 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 | 62.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 64.0% | 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 | 46.0% | 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 | 83.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.2–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 80 beds and averages 75.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.34 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.25 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 5.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.44 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.27 to 0.88 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% 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 3 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2023-04-05 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 maintain the dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner for one of one dumpster. The findings include: The facility staff failed to maintain the dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner. Trash and debris were observed on the ground around the dumpster. On 4/4/23 at 9:45 a.m., observation of the dumpster was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #2, the registered dietitian, and OSM #4, a cook. Trash and debris (including four gloves that were folded inside out, saran wrap, paper debris, an empty specimen cup, a plastic drink cup and a plastic drink cup lid) were observed on the ground around the dumpster. OSM #4 stated the utility department staff goes out to the dumpster to dump trash every hour or so and they should make sure there is not all of that debris around the dumpster. On 4/4/23 at 4:35 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #2, the interim administrator, ASM #3, the director of nursing, and OSM (other staff member) #6, the director of dining services, were made aware…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for two of 26 residents in the survey sample, Residents #56 and #28. The findings include: 1. For Resident #56 (R56), the facility staff failed to implement the resident's comprehensive care plan for psychotropic drug use monitoring. R56's comprehensive care plan dated 9/27/22 documented, Psychotropic Drug Use .observe for side effects . A review of R56's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 11/3/22 for quetiapine (1) 50 mg (milligrams) twice daily. A review of R56's MARs (medication administration records) for January 2023 through April 2023 revealed the resident was administered quetiapine 50 mg twice daily 1/1/23 through 4/2/23. Further review of R56's clinical record (including the MARs, behavior sheets, assessments, and nurses' notes for January 2023 through April 2023) failed to reveal the resident was observed for side effects from the medication quetiapine. On 4/4/23 at 3:17 p.m., an interview was conducted with RN…
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 · E2023-04-05 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for two of 26 residents in the survey sample, Residents #56 and #28. The findings include: 1. For Resident #56 (R56), the facility staff failed to monitor the resident for side effects from the antipsychotic medication quetiapine (1). A review of R56's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 11/3/22 for quetiapine 50 mg (milligrams) twice daily. A review of R56's MARs (medication administration records) for January 2023 through April 2023 revealed the resident was administered quetiapine 50 mg twice daily (1/1/23 through 4/2/23). Further review of R56's clinical record (including the MARs, behavior sheets, assessments, and nurses' notes for January 2023 through April 2023) failed to reveal the resident was monitored for side effects from the medication quetiapine. On 4/4/23 at 3:17 p.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2. RN #2 stated residents should be monitored for side…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 ensure food items available for use were used or discarded prior to the best when used by date, in one of eight small house kitchens, the occoquan kitchen. The findings include: The facility staff failed to store mayonnaise in a safe manner. Five (12 ounce) bottles of unopened mayonnaise with a manufacturer's best when used by date of 2/12/23 were observed in the occoquan kitchen pantry. On 4/3/23 at 12:12 p.m., observation of the occoquan kitchen was conducted. Five (12 ounce) bottles of unopened mayonnaise with a manufacturer's best when used by date of 2/12/23 were observed available for use, on the shelf, in the pantry. On 4/4/23 at 9:56 a.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #5, the sous chef. OSM #5 stated unopened mayonnaise should be discarded after the best when used by date. OSM #5 stated, I don't want residents to get sick, and the quality has gone down. On 4/4/23 at 4:35 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #2, the interim administrator, ASM #3, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-10-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined facility staff failed Store, food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of eight kitchens observed, [NAME] small house kitchen. The facility failed to dispose of plain Greek yogurt with a best by date of 9/19/21 and honey mustard dressing with a use by date of 1/13/21 located on the [NAME] small house kitchen. The findings include: On 10/12/2021 at approximately 1:30 p.m., an observation was made of the [NAME] small house kitchen in the facility. Observation of the French door refrigerator located in the kitchen area revealed an unopened 32 ounce container of plain Greek yogurt. The container was observed to have the manufacturers date documenting Best by 19 [DATE]. Observation of the standing side by side refrigerator/freezer located in the pantry area of the [NAME] small house kitchen revealed a one gallon container of honey mustard dressing approximately one-quarter full. The container 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-01-31 · 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, it was determined that the facility staff failed to store, prepare and serve food in a safe and sanitary manner, in two of eight facility household kitchens, the Maherrin household kitchen and the Rappahannock household kitchen. 1. a. The facility staff failed to label and store food in a safe and sanitary manner in the Maherrin household kitchen. 1. b. The facility staff failed to hold cold food at a safe temperature in the Maherrin and Rappahannock household kitchens. 2. The facility staff failed to store dishware in a safe and sanitary manner in the Maherrin and Rappahannock household kitchens. The findings include: 1. a. The facility staff failed to label and store food in a safe and sanitary manner in the Maherrin household kitchen. On 1/29/19 at 12:22 p.m., observation of the Maherrin household kitchen was conducted. The following was observed: In the refrigerator: - An opened glass jar of homemade apricot pineapple jam that documented a resident's name on the top label. The top label documented, Apricot…
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 · D2019-01-31 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food in a manner to promote dignity for one of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 37. During a dining observation, in the [NAME] household unit dining room, Resident # 37 was observed sitting at the dining room table and waiting 23 minutes to be served and assisted with eating his meal by staff, while watching seven residents seated at the table with him, eat their dinner. The findings include: Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: Alzheimer's disease (1), dysphagia (2), atrial fibrillation (3) and chronic respiratory failure (4). Resident # 37's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/04/18, coded Resident # 37 as scoring a 3 (three) on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score 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 · D2019-01-31 · 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, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to meet the appropriate transfer requirements for three of 31 residents in the survey sample; Resident # 46, # 21, and # 69. 1. The facility staff failed to evidence that Resident #46's comprehensive care plan goals were sent with the resident to the hospital for the facility initiated transfer dated 01/06/2019. 2. The facility staff failed to evidence that Resident # 21's comprehensive care plan goals were sent with the resident to the hospital for facility initiated transfer dated 01/07/2019. 3. The facility staff failed to provide the receiving facility with the Resident #69's comprehensive care plan goals for a facility initiated transfer to hospital that occurred on 12/11/18. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to evidence that Resident #46's comprehensive care plan goals were sent with the resident to the hospital for the facility initiated transfer dated…
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 · D2019-01-31 · 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, it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete a discharge minimum data set (MDS) assessment for one of 31 residents in the survey sample; Resident #2. Resident #2 expired in the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS in the facility's system was a quarterly MDS with an ARD (assessment reference date) of [DATE]. As of [DATE], the date of the survey, there had been no discharge MDS assessment completed. The findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of but not limited to high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and Rheumatoid Arthritis. The most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of [DATE]. The resident was coded as mildly cognitively impaired in ability to make daily life decisions. The resident was coded as requiring total care for bathing; extensive care for transfers, dressing, and toileting; limited…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-01-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was implemented for two of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 72 and Resident #70. 1. During multiple observations, Resident #72 was receiving oxygen at 2 (two) and a half, liters instead of the 2 L (two liters) ordered by the physician and per the residents comprehensive care plan. 2. The facility staff failed to implement Resident #70's comprehensive care plan to offer non-pharmacological pain relief methods as needed and prior to the administering as needed pain medication to Resident #70. The findings include: 1. Resident # 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission [DATE] with diagnoses, which included but were not limited to: heart failure (1), atrial fibrillation (2), dysphagia (3) and pleural effusion (4). Resident # 72's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) 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 · D2019-01-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure respiratory care and services were provided in accordance with professional standard of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 72. The facility staff failed to administer Resident # 72's oxygen according to the physician's orders. The findings include: Resident # 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: heart failure (1), atrial fibrillation (2), dysphagia (3) and pleural effusion (4). Resident # 72's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/27/18, coded Resident # 72 as scoring a 10 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 10 - being moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 72 was coded as requiring limited to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-01-31 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide pain management for two of 31 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 46 and # 70. 1. The facility staff failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administering as needed pain medication to Resident #46. 2. The facility staff failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administering as needed pain medication to Resident #70. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administering as needed pain medication to Resident #46. Resident # 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission of 01/09/19 with diagnoses that included but were not limited to pain, hemiplegia (1), type 2 (two) diabetes (2), dementia (3) gastroesophageal reflux disease (4), and hypertension (5). Resident # 46's most recent MDS (minimum data set), 5 (five)-day assessment with an ARD (assessment…
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 · D2019-01-31 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for three of 31 residents in the survey sample, Residents #223, #127 and #68. 1. The facility staff failed to document non-pharmacological interventions that were offered to Resident #223 prior to administering as needed pain medication to the resident on multiple dates in January 2019. 2. The facility staff failed to document the use of non-pharmacological interventions before administering pain medication to Resident #127, on 8 occasions in January 2019. 3. The facility staff failed to document the use of non-pharmacological interventions before administering pain medication to Resident #68, on 10 occasions in January 2019. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to document non-pharmacological interventions that were offered to Resident #223 prior to administering as needed pain medication to the resident on multiple…
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 · D2019-01-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food in a sanitary manner in two of eight resident dining rooms. 1. CNA (Certified nursing assistant) # 3 failed to change gloves in between touching cabinet and drawer handles, oven door handle and the food contact areas of serving platters, casserole dish and dinner plates that was used to serve food in the [NAME] household unit. 2. CNA (Certified nursing assistant) #1 failed to change gloves in between touching cabinet handles and the food contact areas of a bowl and a plate that was used to serve food in the Maherrin household unit. The findings include: 1. CNA (Certified nursing assistant) # 3 failed to change gloves in between touching cabinet and drawer handles, oven door handle and the food contact areas of serving platters, casserole dish and dinner plates that was used to serve food in the [NAME] household unit. On 1/29/19 at 5:06 p.m., an observation of the evening meal was conducted on the [NAME]…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIEBREICH, ROBERT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2019 |
| BERNATEAU, SHERRETTA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/25/2019 |
| CHOI, PHOEBE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/21/2020 |
| CARWILE, JUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| D'AGOSTINO, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/06/2017 |
| KUMAR, CHANDRA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/14/2023 |
| SIEGEL, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/23/2017 |
| SMITH, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/30/2021 |
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.
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 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 495057. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-04-05, 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.