Liberty Ridge Health & Rehab
189 Monica Blvd, Lynchburg, VA 24502 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (434) 847-2860 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)
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,033 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 4 to 3 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 | 17.4% | 14.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 2.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.1% | 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 | 5.0% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.7% | 15.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.2% | 20.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.8% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.2% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.3% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.2% | 73.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.3% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.59 | 1.48 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
64.8% 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 462 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.1% 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 214 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 64.8%CMS range 60.1–68.6 | 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 | 13.0%CMS range 10.5–15.7 | 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 | 49.1% | 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 | 52.8% | 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 | 59.4% | 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 | 94.7% | 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 | 98.4% | 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 | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.7% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.4–8.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 81.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 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 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.72 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of practice during medication administration, that resulted in harm for 1 of 21 residents in the survey sample. (Resident # 33 - R 33). The findings include: Facility staff administered medications to R33 that had been ordered for another resident, R15, who was her roommate. The nurse that prepared the medications gave the medication to another nurse to administer, which resulted in R33 receiving medications not intended or ordered for her, requiring hospitalization, which is harm. On 6/4/24 and 6/5/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R33's chart. This review revealed that on 1/12/24 R33 was transferred to the ER (emergency room) for treatment after receiving medications that had been ordered for R15. Per the 1/12/24 ER records, R 33 was administered atropine by emergency medical services, while in route to the ER, and was admitted with diagnoses that included:…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-05 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure that 1 of 21 residents in the survey sample were free of significant medication errors, which resulted in harm (Resident # 33 - R 33). The findings include: Facility staff administered medications to R33 that had been ordered for another resident, R15, who was the roommate. The nurse that prepared the medications gave the medication to another nurse to administer, which resulted in R33 receiving medications not intended or ordered for her. resulting in hospitalization, which caused harm. According to the clinical record, R33 had diagnoses that included dementia, muscle weakness, hypertension, major depressive disorder, long term use of anticoagulants, and chronic atrial fibrillation. The most recent minimum data set, which was a quarterly assessment, assessed R33 with severe cognitive impairment. On 6/4/24 and 6/5/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R33's chart. This review revealed…
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 · E2024-06-05 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to follow the posted menu, affecting residents on 2 of 2 nursing units. The findings included: The facility staff failed to follow the posted menu with regards to the vegetable. On 6/3/24 at 3 p.m., the resident council met with a surveyor. During the meeting, residents verbalized that they do not get what is posted on the menu. On 6/3/24 at approximately 4 p.m., observations were made of the menu posting on each of the resident units. The evening meal was listed as chicken tenders, greens, and macaroni and cheese. On 6/3/24, in the afternoon, the menu was reviewed, and it listed the evening meal as being chicken tenders, seasoned greens, macaroni and cheese, and fresh fruit cup. On 6/3/24 at 04:24 p.m., observations were conducted in the kitchen of the evening meal that was being prepared by the cook/other staff #6 (OS #6). The cook said that she was preparing broccoli because they didn't have greens. When asked what the process is when they do not have what is on 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 · E2024-06-05 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility documentation review, the facility failed to provide foods that were at appetizing temperatures on two of two nursing units, affecting multiple residents. Findings include: The facility staff failed to serve foods at an appetizing temperature on the long-term care unit. On 6/3/24 at 3 p.m., a meeting was held with the resident council, of which seven residents were in attendance. During the meeting, the residents verbalized that the food is not hot. On 6/3/24 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #51 (R51) who stated, The food is lukewarm, coffee is not hot. I could probably get someone to heat it up or get me another cup, but then you have to wait. On 6/3/24 at 4:24 p.m., observations were conducted in the kitchen. The dietary manager was asked how coffee was prepared and distributed to residents. The dietary manager explained that coffee is brewed in the kitchen, cooled with ice, and then put into coffee dispensers that are sent to the dining room. The dietary manager stated that from the dining…
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 before2024-06-05 · 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 and prepare food in accordance with food safety standards in the main kitchen having the potential to affect residents on 2 of 2 resident care units. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to store foods in a manner to prevent contamination and failed to label and date items in the freezer and refrigerators. On 6/3/24 at 10:35 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted with the dietary manger. This observation revealed that in the dry storage room there was two bags of pasta that were open to air. One bag of pasta had the bag tied but a hole had also been ripped into the bag. Neither bag was dated as to when they were opened. There was also a bag of brown sugar that was open to air and didn't have any date as to when it was opened, or when it was to be used by. When asked how such items were expected to be stored, the dietary manager stated, In a re-usable bag. There were three containers that held dry cereal that had been removed from the original…
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 · D2024-06-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure two residents (Resident #70- R70) and (Resident #67- R67), were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, in a survey sample of 21 residents. The findings included: 1. For Resident #70 (R70), the facility staff failed to limit an order to 14 days for the psychotropic medication Ativan, an antianxiety medication, ordered to be given as needed. On 6/3/24 at 11:51 a.m., R70 was observed in their room and appeared comfortable. On 6/3/24 and 6/4/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R70's chart. This review revealed that R70 had an active physician order for Ativan 0.5 mg tablet to be administered every 4 hours as needed (prn) for anxiety or agitation. The order was written 4/15/24, had no stop date, and at the time of survey, it remained an active order. On 6/4/24 at 2:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #1 (certified nursing assistant). When asked about…
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 · D2024-06-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 accurately label a medication and discard an expired medication on one of two units (skilled unit). The findings include: 1. The medication metoprolol administered to Resident #132 during a medication pass observation was labeled with an incorrect dosage. A medication pass observation was conducted on 6/4/24 at 7:39 a.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN #2) administering medications to Resident #132 (R132). Among the medications administered was a half tablet of metoprolol 25 mg (milligrams) for a 12.5 mg dose. R132's pharmacy supply card of metoprolol was labeled with instructions to give 25 mg twice per day. There was nothing documented on the supply card label indicating the half tablet (12.5 mg) dose or of any recent dose change. R132's clinical record documented a physician's order dated 5/30/24 for metoprolol 25 mg with instructions to give 1/2 (one half) tablet twice per day for treatment of hypertension. On 6/4/24 at 8:26 a.m., LPN #2 was interviewed…
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 before2024-06-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate clinical record for one of twenty-one residents in the survey sample (Resident #68) The findings include: Resident #68 (R68) was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included anemia, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and arthritis. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed R68 as cognitively intact. R68's clinical record documented a Durable Do Not Resuscitate Order signed by the physician and resident on 5/19/24. R68's clinical record also documented an Advance Care Planning Tracking Form dated 5/21/24 for Resident #73. Resident #73's Advance Care Planning Tracking Form documented a verified full code status and was dated 5/21/24. On 6/4/24 at 10:54 a.m., the medical records clerk (other staff #1) was interviewed about R73's advance directive checklist found in R68's clinical record. The medical records clerk stated that the social services department was responsible for entering forms regarding…
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 before2022-02-10 · 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 document review the facility staff failed to ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen of the facility. Findings include: On 2/8/22 beginning at 10:55 a.m. the kitchen was inspected with the dietary manager (DM). The refrigerator contained 4 plastic bins with approximately 50 half-pint containers of milk that were expired as of 2/7/22. Another plastic bin contained approximately 20 cartons of expired milk for a total of approximately 220 cartons of expired milk. The DM was asked about the amount of milk, and he replied, The delivery man used to come twice per week, he has only been coming once a week for the past month. I had this same issue last week, and I'm trying to get him back twice a week. There was no explanation as to why he has reduced the delivery schedule . On 2/8/22 at 12:00 p.m. an employee, identified as the cook, was observed without a hair restraint covering over her hair. When asked why she did not have on a hair restraint, she stated I've been running around here trying to get…
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 · D2022-02-10 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to accurately complete a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) for one of 22 residents in the survey sample, Resident #62. Resident #62's PASARR did not accurately document the diagnosis of schizophrenia. The findings include: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included foot fracture, hypertension, hypotension, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, depression, and schizophrenia. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] was a 5 day admission assessment and assessed Resident #62 as cognitively intact for daily decision making with a score of 14 out of 15. Under Section I - Active Diagnoses: Psychiatric/Mood Disorders, Resident #62 was assessed with depression and schizophrenia. Resident #62's electronic clinical record was reviewed on 02/08/22. Observed on the physician's orders was the following: Trihexyphenidyl HCI Table 5 MG Give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for…
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 before2022-02-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 22 residents in the survey sample: Resident # 31. Resident 31 had a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) form in the clinical record that was incomplete and inaccurate. Findings include: Resident # 31 was admitted to the facility 6/2/13 with diagnoses to include, but were not limited to: muscle weakness, pain in right hip, heart failure, high blood pressure, and vitamin D deficiency. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a quarterly review dated 1/7/22 and had Resident # 31 as being cognitively intact with a summary score of 13 out of 15. The electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed 2/9/22 at approximately 3:00 p.m. A PASARR Level I, DMAS form 95 was observed scanned into the miscellaneous documents of the clinical record. The PASARR did not identify Resident #31 has having a current mental illness. Per review of the clinical record, Resident # 31 did not have a diagnosis of a mental illness, or dementia. The PASARR form,…
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 · D2022-02-10 · 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 ensure infection control practices were followed for one of three isolation rooms on the COVID unit. Findings include: On 02/09/22 10:36 AM, the COVID unit/rooms were observed. Each room had a plastic barrier at each door and two isolation carts were in the hall. Both isolation carts had gowns, gloves and N-95 masks, but there was no eye protection in either of the isolation carts. Each of the rooms had signage attached to the door frame, which documented: .droplet-contact precautions .perform hand hygiene, wear a mask before entering, gown before entering, gloves before entering, eye protection before entering .red room. CNA (certified nursing assistant) #3, was informed there was no eye protection/goggles on the carts and was asked where the eye protection was located. CNA #3 stated that she didn't know, but would try to find the goggles they use. CNA #3 looked in the supply room and did not find any. CNA #3 stated that she thought housekeeping restocked the isolation cart, but wasn't…
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 · D2022-02-10 · tag F0888 — isolatedEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to meet the requirement for staff COVID-19 vaccination. The facility staff's COVID-19 vaccination rate was 93.5% instead of the required 100% compliance rate as required. The findings include: On 02/08/2022 at 10:21 a.m. during the entrance conference, the administrator and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed regarding the facility's staff COVID-19 vaccination rate. The DON stated, We're not at 100%, but we're working on it and are providing onsite COVID-19 vaccines for all staff. The facility's staff was requested to provide the current COVID-19 vaccination status for all staff members including any contract staff. A review of the NHSN (National Health Safety Network) data dated 1/23/2022 documented the facility's reported staff vaccination rate was 83.2%. A review of the facility's COVID-19 staff vaccination matrix documented the facility employed 123 staff, that included 109 staff completely vaccinated, 5 staff partially vaccinated, and 1 staff with a pending medical exemption which equaled…
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 · D2021-02-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to implement interventions for the prevention and/or treatment of pressure ulcers for three of 21 residents in the survey sample. Wound treatment orders for Resident #24's toe ulcer were not implemented as recommended by the wound consultant and per manufacturer's recommendation for administration of Santyl ointment. Resident #43's heel ulcer was observed without a physician ordered dressing and protective boot in place. Resident #15 was observed without a protective boot in use for pressure ulcer prevention. The findings include: 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-admission on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #2 included diabetes, neuropathy, asthma, gout, anxiety, depression, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic pain, dementia, heart failure and fractured clavicle. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #24 as cognitively intact. During…
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 · D2021-02-17 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to implement interventions to minimize pain during a dressing change for one of 21 residents in the survey sample. Resident #24 was not offered any interventions to minimize pain/discomfort during a dressing change to a left toe wound. The findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-admission on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #2 included diabetes, neuropathy, asthma, gout, anxiety, depression, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic pain, dementia, heart failure and fractured clavicle. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #24 as cognitively intact. During an interview with Resident #24, the resident stated new shoes rubbed a blister on one of her left toes and nurses provided daily dressing changes to the open wound. On 2/17/21 at 7:55 a.m., with the resident's permission, registered nurse (RN) #1 was observed changing the dressing…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-06-05 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interviews, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to update the grievance officer's information so residents would know with whom to file a grievance on two of two units. The findings included: The facility staff failed to update the postings in the common area on each of the nursing units with the grievance officer's correct information, so the residents would know to whom to file their grievance. On 6/3/24 at 3:00 p.m., a resident council group meeting was conducted, with seven residents in attendance. Residents # 1, 5, 12, 20, 21, 31, and 56 were in attendance and verbalized that they were not aware of who to file a grievance with, if they needed to do file a grievance. On 6/3/24 at 3:45 p.m., an observation was made of two postings with the grievance officer's information. The two postings were located at the nurse's station on each unit. On each of the grievance postings, the grievance official's name, phone number, and address was noted, which identified other staff #8 as the grievance officer. On 6/3/24 at 4:00…
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
$10,033 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,033 — penalty dated 2024-06-05
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/20/2013 |
| BENJAMIN N. VOLPE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST (DATED DECEMBER 29, 2020) | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2023 |
| BNV DYNASTY LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2023 |
| DECANTED WILLIAM I. WEISBERG FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST (DATED SEPT 30, 2020 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2023 |
| WIW DYNASTY LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2023 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/14/2026 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| ISABELLE, CHAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/27/2025 |
| SWIM, KYLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/05/2025 |
| MITCHELL, WILLIAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/14/2026 |
| BUNDLE TENANT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/16/2025 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/13/2013 |
| RSF SP LIBERTY RIDGE V, L.P. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2025 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/12/2013 |
| TCF NATIONAL BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2019 |
| WALKER & ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/13/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
13 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 $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in VA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Virginia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 495411. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-05, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.