Rappahannock Westminster Canterbury
132 Lancaster Drive, Irvington, VA 22480 · Non profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (804) 438-4000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.8% | 14.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 18.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 6.9% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.2% | 15.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.3% | 20.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.8% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.1% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.7% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.4% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.37 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.99 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 5.8–15.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 42 beds and averages 36.3 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.55 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.19 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.74 to 1.07 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-01-13 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide consistent basic life support, including CPR for 1 Resident (Resident #35) in a survey sample of 27 Residents. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy at Level 4 isolated on [DATE]. After reviewing the facility documentation, Immediate Jeopardy was determined to be removed at past non-compliance on [DATE]. The findings included: 1. For Resident #35, the facility staff failed to continue cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on [DATE]. Also, the facility staff failed to activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) when CPR was initiated. Resident #35 was a full code. Resident # 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. Resident # 35's diagnoses included but were not limited to: Parkinson's disease, Orthostatic hypotension and Peripheral Vertigo. Resident # 35's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment with an Assessment Review Date of [DATE] was coded as an admission Assessment 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 2 kitchens/food preparation/service areas inspected. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to store food in a manner consistent with professional standards for food service safety with regard to, labeling and protection from contaminates. On 8/8/23 at 12:45 PM, observations were made in the facility's main kitchen. The facility's dietary manager was present and accompanied Surveyor C. In the storage bin for the dry goods, a foreign object was observed in the seafood breading. The item was scooped out using a scoop and the dietary manager sifted the dry seafood breading into a bowl. Once the object was reached, the dietary manager put on a pair of gloves and was able to remove the breading from the object. The dietary manager and Surveyor C both confirmed that it was a brown bug with wings that was approximately 1/2 inch long. The dietary manager instructed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-10 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain an effective pest control program ensure the facility is free of pests in the main kitchen, which has the ability to affect multiple Residents within the facility. The findings included: On 8/8/23 at 12:45 PM, a preliminary inspection was conducted in the main kitchen. Observations were made with the dietary manager present. The following observations were noted: Throughout the entire kitchen an abundance of flies was noted in all food preparation areas. Flies were noted to be on the food prep tables, in the dry storage room and in the dish machine area. In the bin where the seafood breaded was stored, something was noted to be in the breaded. The dietary manager scooped the item out of the bin and sifted it into a bowl to make closer observations. It was noted that a small bug, approximately 3/4 of an inch long, tan in color with wings was noted. The dietary manager instructed the kitchen staff to discard the entire contents of the bin, as it was contaminated. On 8/10/23…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to immediately inform the Resident's physician, and Resident representative of change in condition for 1 Residents (#14) in a survey sample of 19 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #14, who had a decline in condition, the facility staff failed to notify the physician of the Resident's inability to accept administered medications on several occasions. On 8/8/23-8/9/23, a record review was conducted. This review revealed: A progress note dated 08/04/2023 at 11:17 PM, read, Resident received in bed this evening. Has been resting, refused HS meds and fluids offered, nurse attempted to moisten mouth and resident closed and pursed lips. Did not open eyes however did begin to moan in song like manner which is a normal behavior for her indicating desire to be left alone. Skin warm pink and dry. No outward sign or evidence of discomfort. VS 97.1- 84- 18-137/86-96%. Offered Ensure as well which she also refused. On 08/04/2023 at 11:50 PM, a nurse wrote, Resident received in…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility failed to ensure that a Medicare Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) was completed and issued to 2 Residents (#81, and #82) in a survey sample of 3 ABN Residents. The findings included; For Resident #81, and #82, the facility failed to ensure an effective date of insurance coverage loss was documented on the ABN prior to the loss of coverage. On 8-9-23 during the course of the survey, the Administrator was asked for ABN records for three skilled nursing discharged individuals. The documents were received and revealed that two of the three documents had not been correctly completed. Resident's #81, and #82 received the Advanced Beneficiary notices and signed them without the required area being filled out for Effective date coverage of your current services will end being documented on the notices. This indicated both Residents would be unaware of insurance coverage loss date, and thus have no ability to enact their right to appeal. On 8-9-23 at 5:00 p.m., during the end of day debrief, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review the facility staff failed to complete an assessment that accurately reflects the Resident's status for one Resident (Resident #30) in a survey sample of 19 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #30 the facility staff failed to accurately record on the MDS (Minimum Data Set) (an assessment) where the Resident #30 was admitted from and that a discharge plan was in process. On 8/9/23, a closed clinical record review was conducted of Resident #30's chart. This review revealed that Resident #30 had a discharge minimum data set (MDS) assessment, which was completed 7/27/23. This assessment indicated in section A0310. G., that Resident #30 was an unplanned discharge. Section A1800, was coded that Resident #30 had been admitted from an acute care hospital. Review of the Nursing admission Comprehensive Assessment for Resident #30 was reviewed. This document read, .Entered From: 01. Community (private home/apt, board/care, assisted living, group home) . The nursing notes didn't indicate any details…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 follow professional standards of nursing for 1 resident (Resident #3) in a sample of 19 residents. The findings include: For Resident #3 the facility staff failed to clarify an order for a PRN laxative. On 8/8/23, during clinical record review, it was noted that Resident #3 had orders that included the following PRN laxative. NATURAL LAXATIVE (30cc) Oral as Needed Starting 08/07/2015 Order Date: 8/7/2015 - CONSTIPATION NOS Notes: For complaint of constipation. On 8/9/23 at 1:00 pm, an interview was conducted with RN D who was asked how many times she could give the Natural Laxative she stated she did not know, as the order did not specify. On 8/10/23 at 3:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON who was asked if the facility has standing orders and she indicated that they did. When asked if the nurses knew the protocol for using the standing orders, she stated that they did. When asked if the Natural Laxative order was clear as to how many doses could be administered and she stated that it was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff and physician failed to complete a discharge summary to include recapitulation of stay for 1 resident (Resident #30) in the survey sample of 19 residents. The findings included: For Resident #30, the facility staff failed to complete a recapitulation of stay and discharge summary upon the Resident's discharge from the facility. Resident #30 was discharged from the facility on 07/17/23. The Resident's closed record was reviewed on 8/9/23. No discharge summary, nor recapitulation of stay was included in the closed record. On 8/9/23, the survey team requested for the facility to provide the discharge summary and recapitulation of stay for Resident #30. The director of nursing notified the survey team she had no such records available to provide the survey team. The Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the missing discharge summary at the end of day meeting on 8/10/23. No further information was provided by the facility.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · 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 observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation facility staff failed to provide treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection for 1 Resident (#19) in a survey sample of 19 Residents. The findings include: For Resident #19 the facility staff failed to provide adequate monitoring and treatment to prevent infection from developing in venous stasis wound. On 8/8/23, during clinical record review, it was found that Resident #19 had a document entitled Wound Assessment, excerpts are as follows: Date wound Identified - 3/2/23 Type of Wound - Vascular - Facility Acquired. Right Anterior Foot. Closed dark purple red in color. 2.1 cm x 0.8 cm The wound was documented weekly and by 7/13/23 the wound was 2.2 cm x 1 cm and opened at the base. The wound was not documented again until 7/27/23 (14 days later) when it was measured at 5.0 cm x 5.0 cm. Described as Vascular other description of wound color, drainage or progress was given. The next measurement was during survey on 8/10/23 (14…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide 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
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to accurately account for controlled medication for 1 resident (Resident #7) in a survey sample of 19 residents. The findings included: For Resident # 7 the facility staff failed to accurately account for controlled medication. On 8/9/23 at approximately 9:00 AM during med pass it was observed that Resident #7's controlled count sheet for morphine was not accurate. The controlled sheet reflected 24.75 ml (milliliters) of liquid morphine and the bottle contained 30 ml. A review of the controlled sheet revealed that on 7/25/23 at 10:34 AM, the initial dose was given from the bottle. There was no nurse's signature; only date, time, amount given, and the quantity left in the bottle were filled in. Upon closer inspection the controlled sheet was found to have a mathematical error that only accounted for an overage of 1 m. On 7/26/23 at 9:45 PM the nurse signed out 0.25 ml and that left 29.25 in the bottle. On 7/27/23 at 9:58 PM the nurse gave 0.25 ml and instead of writing that there was 29 ml left in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to ensure Residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic's for 1 Resident (#3) in a survey sample of 19 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #3, the facility staff failed to ensure the As Needed (PRN) Ativan was only ordered for 14 days without proper documentation. On 8/8/23 a review of the clinical record revealed that Resident #7 had orders for PRN Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication) the order read as follows: Lorazepam 2 mg (milligrams)/mL(milliliter) oral concentrate (.25 ml) PRN Every 4 Hours for 60 Days. Order Date: 7/25/2023- ICD-10: F41.9 - ANXIETY DISORDER, UNSPECIFIED Notes: For agitation, psychotic disturbance, anxiety, and/or mood disturbance. On 8/9/23 at approximately 10 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was asked how long a PRN order for Psychotropic medication should be, the DON stated it should be only for 14 days then reevaluated. The DON stated that Resident #3 got an order from hospice for 14 days then Resident #3 got…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-01-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to store food in a manner to identify the food item and the date opened or to be used by, in 2 of 4 food storage areas inspected. The findings included: On 1/11/22 at 2:59 PM, observations were made in the facility kitchen. Surveyor C was accompanied by Employee F, the dietary manager. In the walk-in freezer, two bags of mixed vegetables and a bag of green peas were open to air, not secured in a manner to protect from environmental contaminates, and had no date. A bag of green beans were observed to be wrapped in saran wrap and had no date. Observations of the walk-in freezer labeled as #4 contained an item in a zip lock bag that Surveyor C was not able to identify. It had no labeling and no date. Employee F, the dietary manager identified the item as, Muffin mix dough. Employee F confirmed all of the observations as they were being made and stated .I expect every item opened to be labeled and dated, properly wrapped and sealed after each use. The potential risks of not doing this is,…
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 before2022-01-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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, resident interview, staff interviews and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the environment was free of accident hazards by allowing Resident access to medication/treatment and sharps for 1 Resident (Resident #6) in a survey sample of 27 Residents. The findings included: A clinical record review for Resident #6 was conducted. This review revealed that Resident #6 had the following diagnosis: Alzheimer's disease with late onset, visual hallucinations and auditory hallucinations. Resident #6's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 10/7/21, was coded as an annual assessment. On this assessment Resident #6 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 6, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #6 was also coded on this assessment as having had hallucinations and delusions. Resident #6 required extensive assistance of one staff person for personal hygiene. Resident #6's clinical record revealed no physician orders for self-administration…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure freedom from accident hazard for 1 Resident in a survey sample of 18 Residents. For Resident # 91 the facility failed to ensure foot rests were in place on wheelchair while transporting Resident in wheelchair. The findings include: Resident #91 a [AGE] year old woman was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to Dementia, osteoporosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Kidney Disease, HTN, and generalized weakness. According to last (Minimum Data Set) MDS (screening tool) with an (Assessment Reference Date) ARD date of [DATE], Resident #91 was coded as having a (Brief Interview of Mental Status) BIMS score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. She was also coded as requiring extensive assistance of 2 person physical assistance with all aspects of (Activities of Daily Living) ADL care to include transfers and bed mobility. The Resident used a wheelchair for locomotion in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAPPAHANNOCK WESTMINSTER-CANTERBURY, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/26/1980 |
| CHESAPEAKE BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 12/27/2012 |
| UNION FIRST MARKET BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 12/27/2012 |
| BLANDFORD, CAMERON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| FOSTER, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| JOY, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/20/2012 |
| KELLUM, SANDRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| LIMBURG, MEGAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| MOSELEY, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2020 |
| BUNTING, STUART | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/22/1999 |
| JONES, SHANEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/17/2021 |
| WALLIN, WANDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/17/2021 |
| WILLIAMS, PHILLIP | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/17/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 495160. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-08-10, 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.