Gretna Health And Rehabilitation Center
595 Vaden Drive, Gretna, VA 24557 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (434) 656-1206 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 25% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 | 15.2% | 14.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 40.0% | 18.7% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 4.9% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.7% | 15.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.3% | 20.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.7% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 66.9% | 73.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 22.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.5% | 11.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.70 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.73 | 1.48 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
58.2% 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 238 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 27.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 69 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 58.2%CMS range 52.8–63.8 | 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 | 12.4%CMS range 9.0–16.4 | 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 | 27.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 26.1% | 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 | 29.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 94.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 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 | 8.9%CMS range 5.6–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.21 | 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 90 beds and averages 88.0 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.80 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as 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 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.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow the provider orders for wound care and failed to obtain provider orders for a fracture for 1 of 5 closed record reviews, Resident #94. Findings included:1. The facility staff failed to complete provider ordered treatments for a hematoma on Resident #94's left calf. Resident #94 experienced a fall prior to admission to the facility. A hematoma is a localized collection of blood outside blood vessels, usually caused by injury or trauma, which can lead to swelling, pain, and discoloration. Resident #94's diagnoses included contusion of lower leg, Parkinson's disease, and muscle weakness. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #94's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/28/2024 included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating Resident #94 was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated on 05/22/2024, identified impaired skin…
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 before2026-03-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure resident treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for (1) one of (4) four sampled residents, Resident #1. The findings included:For Resident #1, the facility staff failed to follow a medical provider order to discontinue the medication polyethylene glycol powder (MiraLAX) after a bowel movement. Resident #1's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia-mild with agitation, left femur fracture, and difficulty walking. The most recent admission minimum data set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/19/26, assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 12 out of 15 for cognitive abilities, indicating Resident #1 was moderately impaired in cognition. A review of a medical provider progress note dated 2/16/26 read in part, .flagged for constipation greater than 3 days. Polyethylene glycol 1 (one) capful every evening has been…
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 before2026-03-12 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to utilize appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to entrance into a resident room identified for contact precautions. The findings included:On 3/11/26 at 1:01 PM during an initial tour of the facility, Resident #2's room was observed to have a sign outside of the room which read in part, Contact Precautions.gown and gloves.prior to entering room. Other staff #1 (OS#1) was observed in the room with a KN95 mask visible covering their face. No gown or gloves were visible on OS#1. On 3/4/26 at 1:04 PM, unit manager #1 (UM#1) was interviewed and stated the expectation for staff entering the room is for gown and gloves to be worn. On 3/4/26 at 1:05 PM, OS#1 was interviewed and stated education on proper PPE for a contact precaution room had been received and stated a gown and gloves should be worn when entering the room. OS#1 was then observed to don a gown and gloves and then re-entered the resident room. This concern was discussed at the pre-exit meeting on 3/12/26 at 11:07 AM…
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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure 1. the resident communication system relayed calls directly to a staff person or to a centralized staff work area from all residents' rooms and 2 of 2 bathing areas, and 2. call light pull cords were in working order in 2 of 2 bathing areas. The findings were: 1. The residents' call button/bell communication system was not connected to any centralized staff work area or directly to any staff person. During a resident council meeting discussion regarding staff call bell response times, the residents reported their call buttons triggered a visual light above their door to illuminate in the hallway but there was nothing audible when they pressed the button; a handbell had been provided for an audible call bell. Following the resident council meeting which took place on 07/26/23 at 3:00 p.m., the administrator acknowledged the call button communication system was visual, not audible, and residents had been provided a hand bell for audible notifications. At approximately 4:15 p.m. on…
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 before2023-07-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, facility staff failed to administer a diuretic medication per physician orders for 1 of 18 residents in the survey sample (Resident #20). Resident #20 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease, congestive heart failure, presence of implanted defibrillator, pulmonary hypertension, long-term use of insulin and anticoagulants, Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory failure, and essential hypertension. On the Minimum Data Set assessment with assessment reference date 6/5/2023, the resident scored 15/15 on the brief interview for mental status and was assessed as without signs of delirium, psychosis, or behaviors affecting care. Clinical record review on 7/25/23 revealed an order dated 7/13/23 for metolazone oral tablet 2.5 mg (milligrams) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time only for fluid overload 1 day to be given 30 minutes prior to torsemide. The order was entered for administration on 7/14, 7/24, and 7/31. The surveyor asked LPN #3 to check the clinical record…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 act upon pharmacist recommendations for 1 of 18 residents, Resident #40. The findings included: For Resident #40 the facility staff failed to act upon a pharmacist recommendation. Resident #40's face sheet listed diagnoses which included but not limited to anemia, depression, and psychosis. Resident #40's most recent minimum data set with an assessment reference date of 05/12/23 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status score of 3 out of 15 in section C, cognitive patterns. This indicates that the resident is severely cognitively impaired. Resident #40's clinical record was reviewed and contained a Consultant Pharmacist Medication Regimen Review form dated 06/17/23 which read in part See report for any noted irregularities and/or recommendations. Surveyor could not locate a report in the clinical record. This surveyor requested and was provided with a copy of a Consultation Pharmacist Recommendation to Physician report dated, which read in part MRR (medication…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and during a medication pass and pour observation the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 %. There were two errors in 28 opportunities for a medication error rate of 7.14%. These errors affected Resident #60. The findings included: For Resident #60, the facility staff failed to administer the medication, amlodipine and failed to follow the physician's order for the administration of the medication, Vitamin D3. Resident #60's face sheet listed diagnoses which included but not limited to hypertension and vitamin D deficiency. Resident #60's most recent minimum data set with an assessment reference date of 06/30/23 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15 in section C, cognitive patterns. This indicates that the resident is cognitively intact. Resident #60's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and contained a care plan for the resident is at risk for cardiac complications secondary to chronic kidney disease, congestive heart…
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 · E2021-10-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
3. For Resident #22, facility staff failed to ensure a physician ordered supplement was available for administration. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease, traumatic amputation of right lower leg, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and dysphagia. On the Minimum Data Set Assessment with Assessment Reference Date 8/25/21, the resident scored 10/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status and was assessed as without signs of delirium or psychosis. The resident exhibited physical behaviors directed toward others 1-3 days of the week prior to the assessment. Clinical record review revealed a physician order dated 6/9/2021 for Prostat SF 30 ml one time a day for wound healing and skin integrity. The October 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented 9 (Other/ See Progress Notes) on 10/15,16, and 19 and 45 ml (instead of 30) administered on 10/18/21. Notes on 10/15, 10/16, and 10/19 documented Prostat on order, will administer…
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 · E2021-10-21 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — patternPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to consistently document the results of COVID-19 tests in the (EHR) electronic health record for 23 of 26 residents. Resident's #6, #11, #16, #18, #19, #22, #24, #28, #34, #37, #42, #44, #45, #46, #51, #54, #61, #67, #71, #73, #75, #77, and #79. The findings included: The facility staff failed to consistently document the result of COVID-19 testing in the resident's EHR's. During the record reviews, the surveyors were unable to locate all of the results of recent COVID-19 tests in the resident's EHR's. 10/19/21 1:34 p.m., the (DON) Director of Nursing stated the results of the rapid COVID-19 tests were documented on the residents individual (eMARs) electronic medication administration records and the results of the (PCR) polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 laboratory tests were in a folder in a plastic tote in the conference room and were not placed in the residents EHR's. The nurse consultant stated they called the physician right away if they received a positive test result. Prior to the exit conference…
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 · D2021-10-21 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop 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, employee record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident and misappropriation of resident property as evidenced by failure to pre-screen 2 of 25 new hire employees, #16 and #19. The findings included: The facility staff failed to obtain reference checks for Employee #16 and failed to obtain a criminal background check and reference checks for Employee #19. A review of the employee records for Employee #16 and #19 revealed the following documentation: Employee #16 was employed by the facility in housekeeping on 9/20/21. Employee #16's employee record did not contain documentation of a reference check review. Employee #19 was employed by the facility in human resources on 2/17/20. Employee #19's employee record did not contain documentation of a Virginia State Police criminal background check or a reference check review. On 10/20/21 at 3:36 pm, surveyor spoke with HR (human resources) staff member #1 concerning the missing…
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 before2021-10-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care by not following physician's orders for 1 of 26 residents in the survey sample, Resident #11. The findings included: For Resident #11, the facility staff failed to follow the physician's orders for the administration of Metoprolol Tartrate (a beta blocker used to treat angina and hypertension). Resident #11's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to Unspecified Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Adult Failure to Thrive, Anorexia, Tachycardia Unspecified, and Orthostatic Hypotension. The most recent annual MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/28/21 assigned the resident a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 14 out of 15 in section C, Cognitive Patterns. Resident #11's current physician's orders included an active order dated 9/01/21 for Metoprolol Tartrate tablet give 12.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to Tachycardia Unspecified hold SBP (systolic blood pressure) less than…
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 before2021-10-21 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review the facility staff failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, specifically COVID-19, for one of one COVID unit. The findings included: For the COVID unit of the facility, the facility staff failed to don proper PPE (personal protective equipment) prior to entering a room with a resident that was COVID positive, then exited the unit and back into the facility. On 10/19/21 at 4:00 pm, surveyor observed RN (registered nurse) #1 enter the COVID unit through a zippered barrier that separated the COVID unit from the observation unit. RN #2 was wearing an N95 mask, but no other PPE. RN #2 entered Resident #231's room, without donning any other PPE. When RN #2 exited the room, surveyor introduced herself and asked RN #2 if they had donned PPE prior to entering the room, and RN #2 stated I forgot my face shield,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRETNA HOLDINGS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/28/2021 |
| AMERICA WEST LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| CHARLES 1994 & FAMILY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| CHARLES 1994 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| CHARLES 1994 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| EDWARD 1998 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| EDWARD 1998 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| KSS 2000 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| ML 2000 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| MRV WEST LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| REDROCK WEST LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| SAUL 2012 FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| SAUL 2012 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2021 |
| POWERS, AMANDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/11/2023 |
| RCZBM WEST MANAGER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/28/2021 |
14 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% 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
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 495202. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-07-27, 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.