Piney Forest Health And Rehabilitation Center

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

47.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 81 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 52.9% 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 34 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 115.9 residents a day — about 97% 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 3.04 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.67 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 2.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.16 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

• Potential for harm · E2025-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The findings included: The facility staff failed to label and date food items in the facility coolers. On 1/28/25 at 1:28 PM this surveyor and the dining services manager entered the walk-in cooler. This surveyor noted a white storage container on the shelf of the cooler and asked the dining services manager what was in it. The dining services manager pulled the container off the shelf. The bottom of the container had a clear fluid in it. There was a cut cucumber wrapped in plastic wrap, a storage bag with cut up onions, several slices of sandwich cheese wrapped in plastic wrap, a storage bag with what looked like lunchmeat and more lunchmeat wrapped in plastic wrap. Each item was saturated with the clear fluid that was in the bottom of the container. None of the items had labels or dates on them. The dining service manager stated the meat in the storage bag was ham and the the meat in the plastic wrap 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to: (a) follow infection control guidelines to decrease the potential of and/or risk for infection transmission for 19 residents experiencing gastroenteritis with nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea; (b) utilize the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for one (1) of 23 sampled residents (Resident #107); and (c) implement infection prevention and control procedures/processes for ESBL (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase) urine infection for one (1) of 23 sampled residents (Resident #93). The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to promptly implement contact isolation for 19 residents identified as having gastroenteritis. (Gastroenteritis is often an infectious process resulting in nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea.) On the afternoon of 1/28/25, shortly after entering the facility, the facility staff notified the survey team of having several patients and staff members experiencing nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea. On 1/28/24, at approximately 2:30 p.m.,…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a resident representative was promptly notified of a change in condition resulting in a transfer to the emergency department for one (1) of 23 sampled residents (Resident #35). The findings include: The facility staff failed to promptly notify Resident #35's resident representative of the need to transfer the resident to the emergency department. Resident #35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/8/25, was signed as completed on 1/13/25. Resident #35 was assessed as able to make self understood and as able to understand others. Resident #35's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score was documented as a 10 out of 15; this indicated moderate cognitive impairment. On 12/21/24 at 11:06 p.m., Resident #35 was documented as complaining of a burning sensation when urinating and requesting to be sent to the emergency department. Resident #35 was documented as being sent to the emergency department at 11:51 p.m. No…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate minimum data set assessment (MDS) for 2 of 23 residents, Resident #68 and Resident #98. The findings included: 1. For Resident #68 the facility staff coded the MDS as the resident receiving an anticoagulant, when the resident was not receiving an anticoagulant. Resident #68's face sheet listed diagnoses which included but not limited to peripheral vascular disease. Resident #68's most recent MDS with an assessment reference date of 01/16/25 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status score of 9 out of 15 in section C, cognitive patterns. This indicates that that the resident is moderately cognitively impaired. Section N, medications, subsection N0415, High-Risk Drug Classes, coded the resident as receiving an anticoagulant. Resident #68's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and contained a care plan for ANTIPLATELETS: the resident is at risk for bleeding, hemorrhage, excessive bruising and…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure a wander bracelet was in place for 1 of 23 current sampled residents, Resident #93. The findings included: For Resident #93 the facility staff failed to implement a person-centered intervention to ensure a wander bracelet (a wearable device that helps monitor patients or residents who are at risk of wandering. Wander bracelets are used in healthcare facilities to keep patients safe and can trigger alarms, lock doors, and alert staff) was in place on resident's right ankle to reduce the individual's risk for elopement. Resident #93's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to Bipolar Disorder, Type 2 (two) Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial Fibrillation, Cardiogenic Shock, Congestive Heart Failure, Major Depressive Disorder, Parkinson's Disease, and Anxiety Disorder. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/16/25 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 6…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard 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 interviews and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain complete and/or accurate clinical records for one (1) of 23 residents (Resident #20). The findings include: The facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #20's Medication Administration Records (MARs) accurately captured the resident's behaviors. Resident #20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/3/25, was signed as completed on 1/8/25. Resident #20 was assessed as able to make self understood and as able to understand others. Resident #20's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score was documented as six (6) out of 15; this indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #20's MARs for October 2024, November 2024, and January 2025 included an area for facility staff to document monitored behaviors. These MARs included places for behavior monitoring to be documented twice a day (once for dayshift and once for nightshift). The instructions were for a Y to be documented if behaviors were observed and N to be documented if no behaviors…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2022-04-15 · tag F0655 — pattern
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview, family interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide the resident and/or their representatives a summary of the baseline care plans (CP). The facility staff were not providing the resident and/or family's summaries of the resident's baseline care plans. The findings included: 04/12/22 2:29 p.m., during an interview with a family member of Resident #70 the family member expressed a concern to the surveyor that they had not been to a care plan meeting for this resident and that they were told the facility did a weekly report but they had never received one. 04/14/22 1:22 p.m., minimum data set (MDS) nurse stated they did not give baseline CP's to the family and that maybe the nurses on the floor do this. 04/14/22 1:23 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) #4 stated they did jump start meetings but did not give baseline CP's to the families of the residents. 04/14/22 4:25 p.m., during a meeting with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Nurse Consultant (NC), the NC stated the facility was supposed to give the baseline CP's to 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2022-04-15 · tag F0800 — pattern
  Provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, and facility document reviews, the staff failed to ensure residents were provided a nutritious diet that took into consideration resident preferences. The findings include: On 4/13/22 at approximately 9:18 a.m., Resident #28 and Resident #69 were observed to be provided their breakfast trays; the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) and Corporate Nurse were present for these observations. According to the menu and the residents' meal slips, both residents were to receive 4 fluid ounces of sausage gravy. Both Resident #28's and Resident #69's breakfast trays contained less than 4 fluid ounces of sausage gravy. Resident #69's sausage gravy appeared not to contain sausage. The DON and the Corporate Nurse were interviewed about the amount of sausage gravy provided to Resident #28 and Resident #69; they were in agreement it was approximately 1/3 of the amount the residents should have been provided. On 4/13/22 at 9:22 a.m., Resident #96's was observed to be provided their breakfast tray; the facility's DON and Corporate Nurse were present for this…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-04-15 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
  Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to implement their policy in regards to an allegation of abuse for 1 of 24 Residents, Resident #48. The facility staff failed to implement their policy in regards to reporting an alleged incident of abuse regarding Resident #48. The findings included: Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #48's significant change in status minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/27/22 included a brief interview for mental status summary score of 5 out of a possible 15 points. Per the MDS manual, a score of 0-7 indicates severe impairment in cognitive skills. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, unspecified mood disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. Resident #48's comprehensive care plan included the areas of resistive to care, noncompliance with treatment regimen, verbally aggressive at times, impaired cognitive function, and impaired visual function. 04/15/22, the surveyor was 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-04-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to report an allegation of abuse to the appropriate state agencies. The administrator failed to notify the appropriate state agencies when they were made aware of an allegation of abuse from the Department of Health Professions (DHP) regarding Resident #48. The findings included: Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #48's significant change in status minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/27/22 included a brief interview for mental status summary score of 5 out of a possible 15 points. Per the MDS manual, a score of 0-7 indicates severe impairment in cognitive skills. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, unspecified mood disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. Resident #48's comprehensive care plan included the areas of resistive to care, noncompliance with treatment regimen, verbally aggressive at times, impaired cognitive function, and impaired visual function. 04/15/22,…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFEWORKS REHAB — 64 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

18 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.

About 87% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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