Heritage Hall Dillwyn

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.

49.9% 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 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 80.0% 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 35 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 60 beds and averages 56.4 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 2.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.15 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% is about the same as 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 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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide evidence of ADL (activities of daily living) care for one of 28 residents in the survey sample, Resident #46. The findings include: For Resident #46, the facility staff failed to provide evidence of ADL (specifically incontinence care, feeding assistance, and turning/positioning) care. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to non-traumatic brain dysfunction, cancer, Alzheimer's Disease and aphasia. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/29/24, coded the resident as scoring a 99 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview. A review of the MDS Section GG-functional abilities and goals coded the resident as being totally dependent for bed…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain the call bell in a position accessible to the resident, for two of 28 residents in the survey sample, Residents #14 and #161. 1. For Resident #14, the facility staff failed to maintain the call light in a position where they could access it. Resident #14 was observed on 3/19/24 at 8:54 AM and 10:18 AM with the call bell clipped to the top of their mattress above their pillow, not in reach of resident. On 3/19/24 at 1:20 PM, Resident #14 was observed in bed with the call bell clipped below the bed on the right side. An interview was conducted on 3/19/24 at 1:20 PM with RN (registered nurse) #1. When asked if the call bell was within reach of the resident, RN #1 stated it was not. The ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the director of nursing, ASM #2, the vice president of operations/interim administrator and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to protect one of 28 residents in the survey sample from resident to resident abuse, Residents #31. The findings include: The facility failed to protect Resident #31 from physical abuse from another resident, Resident #50 on 12/18/23. A review of a facility synopsis of event with an incident date of 12/18/23 revealed, This evening at approximately 8:00 PM, (Resident #31) was in her room yelling after numerous attempts to redirect her with no success. (Resident #50) comes across the hall and hits (Resident #31) on her left forearm with her Reacher telling her to shut the hl up, people are trying to sleep. (Resident #50) escorted back to her room and placed on every 30-minute checks. (Resident #31) was evaluated for any injury, no redness or bruise noted on left forearm; denies any pain or discomfort. Final report on 12/22/23: (Resident #50) met with the social worker on 12/19/23 and expressed how sorry she was about the incident. Her…

  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 · D2024-03-20 · tag F0623 — isolated
  Provide 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

  Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide written notification of a hospital transfer to the Ombudsman and the Resident Representative for one of 28 residents in the survey sample; Resident #23. The findings include: For Resident #23, the facility staff failed to evidence that written notification of a hospital transfer that occurred on 1/1/24 was provided to the resident representative and the ombudsman. A review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 1/1/24 that documented, Follow up resident tested positive for Covid today .New order obtained. Send resident out of the facility to (name of hospital) Emergency department for evaluation due to Covid positive, lethargic and not eating or drinking well. Called (county) 911 for transportation to the hospital tonight. (County) 911 arrived to the facility with two attendants in route to (name of hospital) emergency department. Sent resident's transfer/discharge summary paper work with him to the hospital. Also, called RP…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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 observations, resident/staff interviews, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of 28 residents in the survey sample, Residents #50 and #1. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for smoking for Resident #50. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to fibromyalgia. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/11/24, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was not cognitively impaired. A review of the MDS Section GG-functional abilities and goals coded the resident as requiring supervision for bed mobility; total dependence for transfer, hygiene/bathing and eating. Resident #50 was observed on 3/18/24 at 3:35 PM smoking in the courtyard.…

  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 · Dcited before2024-03-20 · 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

  The facility staff failed to ensure a safe environment by failing to secure smoking materials for two of 28 residents in the survey sample, Residents #50 and #1. The findings include: 1. For Resident #50, the facility failed to secure smoking materials. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/11/24, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was not cognitively impaired. A review of the MDS Section GG-functional abilities and goals coded the resident as requiring supervision for bed mobility; total dependence for transfer, hygiene/bathing and eating. A review of Resident #50's 2/20/24 quarterly Safe Smoking Assessment revealed, Resident is non-compliant with smoking policy. Resident allowed to smoke independently off facility property. She is to obtain and return her smoking articles when returning to the building. She is reminded to leave the facility grounds and not frequent parking lot or doorways. Resident #50 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observations, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain one of one kitchens in a sanitary manner. The findings include: On 3/18/24 at 11:15 AM, an observation was conducted in the main kitchen. In the walk-in freezer, there was one unlabeled large fast food plastic disposable cup 2/3 full of red drink frozen solid. An interview was conducted on 3/18/24 at 11:30 AM with OSM (other staff member) #1, the food services manager. When asked to review the disposable cup with the red drink frozen solid, OSM #1 stated that should not be in there. OSM #1 removed the cup and disposed of it. The ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the director of nursing, ASM #2, the vice president of operations / interim administrator and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services was made aware of the finding on 3/19/24 at 4:15 PM. No further information was provided prior to exit.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0847 — isolated
  Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, resident interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to comply with all the requirements of a binding arbitration agreement for three of 28 residents in the survey sample; Residents #17, #35 and 43. The findings include: 1. For Resident #17, the facility staff failed to ensure the binding arbitration agreement the resident signed at the time of the most recent admission [DATE]) met all the requirements by law. Resident #17 was severely cognitively impaired in ability to make daily life decisions scoring a 3 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status exam) of the admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 1/24/24. The resident's representative could not be reached for interview regarding their understanding of the below agreement. A review of the Binding Arbitration agreement signed on 1/17/24 by the resident representative for Resident #17, form version 05-19 2019 documented as follows: AGREEMENT…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0848 — isolated
  Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
  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 clinical record review, staff interview, resident interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the binding arbitration agreements contained explicit language as required by law for the selection of an arbitrator and venue, for 3 of 28 residents in the survey sample; Residents #17, #35 and 43. The findings include: 1. For Resident #17, the facility staff failed to ensure the binding arbitration agreement the resident signed at the time of the most recent admission [DATE]) contained explicit language as required by law for the selection of an arbitrator and venue. Resident #17 was severely cognitively impaired in ability to make daily life decisions scoring a 3 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status exam) on the admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 1/24/24. The resident's representative could not be reached for interview regarding their understanding of the below agreement. A review of the Binding Arbitration agreement…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2022-07-28 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — pattern
  Perform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined facility staff failed to maintain resident COVID-19 testing results in the medical record for 3 of 3 residents reviewed during the infection control task, Residents #1, #2 and #14. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to maintain the results of COVID-19 testing for Resident #1 (R1) in the clinical record. On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a significant change assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/14/2022, the resident was coded as being moderately impaired for making daily decisions. On 7/26/2022 at 11:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1, the infection preventionist. LPN #1 stated that residents were currently being tested for COVID-19 weekly due to recent positive staff members. Review of the electronic medical record for R1 failed to evidence documentation of COVID-19 testing results for the past four week period reviewed. Review of the hybrid paper record for R1 failed to evidence documentation of COVID-19…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to HERITAGE HALL — 15 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

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

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

About 82% 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 $463K 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