Riverside Lifelong Health And Rehabilitation - M
603 Main Street, Mathews, VA 23109 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (804) 725-9443 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2021
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 3 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
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.3% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 18.7% | 6.5% | better 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 | 8.7% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 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 | 5.2% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.1% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.7% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.3% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.3% | 73.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 5.5% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.7% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.45 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.99 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.6–17.6 | 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 | 95.5% | 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 | 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 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.5% | 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 | 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 | 0.68 | 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 60 beds and averages 57.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.08 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.63 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.27 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2021-07-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility documentation review, clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 Resident (Resident #54) was free from neglect, in a survey sample of 31 Residents. For Resident #54, the facility staff were negligent in their immediate response when he was found unresponsive. The facility staff failed to provide CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) or any other emergency medical treatment, until after Resident #54 had been pronounced deceased and postmortem care had been provided, resulting in harm at past non-compliance. The findings included: Resident #54, diagnosis included but were not limited to: CAD (coronary artery disease), HTN (hypertension), old myocardial infarction, diabetes, and anxiety disorder. Resident #54's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/8/21 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #54 was coded as having had cognitive impairment and moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. He was also coded as having required extensive assistance of one…
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 · G2021-07-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for 1 resident (Resident #54) in a survey sample of 31 residents. For Resident #54, the facility staff failed to implement resuscitation interventions as indicated on his comprehensive care plan when he was found unresponsive and not breathing, resulting in harm at past non-compliance. The findings include: Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long term care due to increasing confusion and decline in cognitive and physical function. Resident #54 was a full code status which indicated resuscitation efforts would be provided if the heart stopped beating or breathing stopped. Review of Resident #54's clinical record revealed an admission Note dated [DATE] which read, Resident is a FULL CODE, and a physician's order which read, FULL CODE. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, effective date [DATE]-Present [[DATE]], page 1, Advance Directives, read…
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 · G2021-07-09 · 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, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide resuscitation interventions for 1 resident (Resident #54) in a survey sample of 31 residents. For Resident #54, who was a full code, the facility staff failed to provide resuscitation interventions when he was found unresponsive and not breathing. This resulted in harm cited at past non-compliance. The findings include: Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long term care due to increasing confusion and decline in cognitive and physical function. Resident #54 was a full code status which indicated resuscitation efforts would be provided if the heart stopped beating or breathing stopped. Review of Resident #54's clinical record revealed an admission Note dated [DATE] which read, Resident is a FULL CODE, and a physician's order which read, FULL CODE. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, effective date [DATE]-Present [[DATE]], page 1, Advance Directives, read Full Code.…
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 · G2021-07-09 · 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, interview, facility documentation and clinical record review the facility staff failed to adequately prevent and treat pressure ulcers for 1 Resident (#42) in a survey of 31 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #42 the facility failed to provide heel protection boots to a non-ambulatory resident until after he developed pressure areas to bilateral heels, and right calf. Resident #42 a [AGE] year old man admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to wedge compression fracture 5th lumbar vertebra, Brown-Sequard Syndrome, autonomic neuropathy, muscle spasm, fracture of neck, non-displaced fracture of 5th cervical vertebra, and injury of cervical spinal cord. Resident #42's MDS ( minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/16/21 a Quarterly Review coded the Resident as having a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 14 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS also coded the Resident as requiring extensive assistance of 2 staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-09 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, clinical record reviews, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement their abuse policy for 7 certified nursing assistants (CNA) (CNA C, CNA D, CNA E, CNA F, CNA G, CNA H, and CNA I) out of a staff sample size of 16 CNA's and for one Resident (Resident #54) out of a sample size of 31 residents. 1. For CNA C, CNA D, CNA E, CNA F, CNA G, CNA H, the facility staff failed to complete license verification upon hire. For CNA I, the facility staff failed to verify CNA I's license renewal which resulted in CNA I working at the facility without verifying license renewal (and having an expired license on file). 2. On 06/11/21, Resident #54, who was a full code was found unresponsive. Four staff members, (CNA A, CNA B, LPN A, RN A), all of which were CPR certified, neglected to provide any type of emergency medical care, to include CPR. This was neglegnt, as well as an unusual occurence; and the facility staff failed to implement their abuse policy in such an event by failing to conduct an investigation and report the incident, until…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-09 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure 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 Observation, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure two Residents were free from significant medication errors (Residents #7, and #23) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. 1. For Resident #7, the facility failed to administer narcotic pain medication timely as ordered by a physician. 2. For Resident #23, the facility failed to administer 5 medications, including a narcotic pain medication timely as ordered by a physician. The findings included: 1. Resident #7, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included; Parkinson's disease, and right shoulder dislocation with pain, contracture right hand, osteoarthritis, and chronic back pain. Resident #7's most recent MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4-14-21 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #7 was coded as having a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of 15 out of a possible 15, or, no cognitive impairment. Resident #7 was also…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-09 · tag F0887 — patternEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to offer the COVID immunization for 8 Residents (Resident #3, #21, #22, #27, #28, #32, #38, #43) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. The facility staff failed to provide evidence that they offered the COVID vaccination to 8 Residents when they were eligible, despite the facility having vaccines available to administer. The findings included: On 7/7/21 at approximately 11:00 AM, Surveyor A met with the facility Director of Nursing (DON) who is also serving as the facility's Infection Preventionist. During this review Surveyor A asked for a copy of the immunization logs for staff and Residents with regards to COVID immunizations. On 7/7/21, a review of the clinical records were performed to find evidence of immunizations, to include the COVID vaccine. Surveyor A was having difficulty finding the information and asked the facility staff for assistance. The facility staff were reminded at the end of the day…
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 · D2021-07-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility failed to report an incident of neglect, which was also an unusual occurence for 1 Resident (Resident #54) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. On 6/11/21, Resident #54, who was a full code was found unresponsive. Four staff members, (CNA A, CNA B, LPN A, RN A), all of which were CPR certified, neglected to provide any type of emergency medical care, to include CPR. The staff response was neglegnt, as well as an unusual occurence; and the facility staff failed to report the event to the OLC (Office of Licensure and Certification), APS (Adult Protective Services), and other authorities as required. The findings included: Resident #54, diagnosis included but were not limited to: CAD (coronary artery disease), HTN (hypertension), old myocardial infarction, diabetes, and anxiety disorder. Resident #54's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/8/21 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #54 was coded as having had cognitive…
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 · D2021-07-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 failed to investigate an incident of neglect, which was also an unusual occurence, for 1 Resident (Resident #54) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. On 6/11/21, Resident #54, who was a full code was found unresponsive. Four staff members, (CNA A, CNA B, LPN A, RN A), all of which were CPR certified, neglected to provide any type of emergency medical care, to include CPR. The staff response was neglegnt, as well as an unusual occurence; and the facility staff failed to conduct an investigation of the event. The findings included: Resident #54, diagnosis included but were not limited to: CAD (coronary artery disease), HTN (hypertension), old myocardial infarction, diabetes, and anxiety disorder. Resident #54's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/8/21 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #54 was coded as having had cognitive impairment and moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. He was also…
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 · D2021-07-09 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, facility documentation and clinical record review the facility staff failed to accurately reflect status of resident on assessments for 1 Resident (#42) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #42 the facility documentation and assessments do not accurately reflect the Resident's condition. Resident #42, a [AGE] year old man admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to wedge compression fracture 5th lumbar vertebra, Brown-Sequard Syndrome, autonomic neuropathy, muscle spasm, fracture of neck, non-displaced fracture of 5th cervical vertebra, and injury of cervical spinal cord. Resident #42's most recent MDS ( minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/16/21, a Quarterly Review coded the Resident as having a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 14 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS also coded the Resident as requiring extensive assistance of 2 staff physical assistance and 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 · D2021-07-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, interview, facility documentation and clinical record review the facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan that is patient centered with measurable goals and objectives for 1 Resident (#42) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. The findings included For Resident #42 the facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan that is patient centered with measurable goals and objectives. For Resident #42 the facility documentation and assessments do not accurately reflect the Resident's condition. Resident #42, a [AGE] year old man admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to wedge compression fracture 5th lumbar vertebra, Brown-Sequard Syndrome, autonomic neuropathy, muscle spasm, fracture of neck, non-displaced fracture of 5th cervical vertebra, and injury of cervical spinal cord. Resident #42's most recent MDS ( minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/16/21, a Quarterly Review coded 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 · D2021-07-09 · 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, facility documentation review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 4 Residents (Resident #54, Resident #42, Resident #7, Resident #23) in a survey sample of 31 Residents. 1. For Resident #54, who was a full code, the facility staff failed to provide any emergency medical treatment, including CPR, when he was found unresponsive. 2. For Resident #7, the facility failed to administer narcotic pain medication timely as ordered by a physician. 3. For Resident #23, the facility failed to administer 5 medications, including a narcotic pain medication timely as ordered by a physician. 4. For Resident #42 the facility failed to provide care according to professional standards of care by having an LPN perform the wound assessments and staging, which is out of the scope of practice for an LPN. The findings included: 1. For Resident #54, who was a full code, the facility staff failed to provide any emergency…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to RIVERSIDE HEALTH SYSTEM — 6 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 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIVERSIDE HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/03/2010 |
| RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 07/10/2023 |
| RIVERSIDE INTEGRATED SERVICES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 95% | since 07/10/2023 |
| NELSON, LINWOOD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/23/2014 |
| ALEWYNSE, JOYCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| BATES, JARED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| HAYWOOD, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| SMITH, CONWAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2008 |
| SMITH, KIRBY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2008 |
| TILLER, BROOKE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| VERSER, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| ZEIDLER, JEANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| AUSTIN, WALTER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/02/2012 |
| DACEY, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| DOWNEY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2008 |
| HECKLER, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| HOUSER, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
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.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 495429. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-08-03, 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.