Harbor's Edge
One Colley Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23510 · Non profit - Corporation · 33 certified beds · (757) 233-0475 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.6% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 18.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.0% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.2% | 20.6% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.8% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.2% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.0% | 73.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.6% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
70.8% 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 331 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.1% 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 133 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 1.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 70.8%CMS range 65.3–75.1 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 7.2–13.0 | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 64.7% | 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 | 65.4% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.5–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 33 beds and averages 29.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.48 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.23 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.32 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.65 to 1.07 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-05 · 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 food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the main kitchen. The findings included:Multiple food packages and bulk food containers were opened without a label indicating an opened or used by date. A gallon container of milk was expired past the use by date and was accessible for distribution. On 2/2/2026 at 4:22 p.m. an initial tour of the main kitchen was conducted with dietary staff (other staff, OS #1 and OS #2) in the main kitchen. Prior to the kitchen tour, OS #1 was asked what the expectation of opened items (dry goods and refrigerated items) regarding labeling is. OS #1 verbalized all opened items should have an open date and used by date when the product is opened. The walk-in refrigerator revealed an open container of shallots in liquid and a container of left-over rigatoni had no label on the containers indicating a use by date. There was also an expired unopen gallon of 2% milk accessible for distribution dated 2/1/26. At this time OS #1…
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 · E2024-03-14 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility's staff failed to have a resident call system that consistently relayed calls directly to a staff member and/or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside, toilet, and bathing area for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #1 was originally admitted to the facility from a local hospital on [DATE] for rehabilitation services after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The admission diagnoses included coronary artery disease, hypotension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, dysphagia, history of breast cancer, anxiety, depression, and obesity. Also, Resident #1 tested covid positive on [DATE]. The resident expired at the facility on [DATE] therefore a closed record review was conducted. The resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) was not completed therefore the following information was obtained from the Nursing assessment dated [DATE]. The assessment…
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 · D2022-08-11 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement their abuse policy regarding the screening of employees for 9 employees no reference checks were obtained and for 3 employees no sworn disclosure statements were obtained in a sample of 19 employee records reviewed. The findings included: On 8/11/22, a review of 19 employee files was conducted and revealed the following: 1. The facility staff failed to obtain employee References for nine employees. The employee record review revealed that 9 current employees did not have reference checks. Employee #1 hired on 10/11/21, employee #2 hired on 9/15/21, employee #3 hired on 12/08/21, employee #4 hired on 1/27/22, employee #5 hired on 2/28/22, employee #15 hired 4/20/22, employee #16 hired on 1/15/21, employee #17 hired on 4/18/22 and employee #18 hired on 8/01/21. 2. The facility staff failed to obtain Sworn Disclosure Statements for three employees: Employee #1 was hired on 10/11/21, employee #2 was hired on 9/15/21 and employee #3 was hired on 1/28/21. On 8/11/22 at approximately 4:50…
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 before2022-08-11 · 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 information gleamed during a closed record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to complete an accurate discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #27), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #27 was originally admitted to the facility 5/24/22 and discharged from the facility to the community 7/2/22. The discharge diagnoses included; right foot cellulites/septic arthritis, osteomyelitis and chronic kidney disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 5/30/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #27's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. Review of the discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's discharge was planned (A0310G), and coded return not anticipated (A0310F) to an acute care hospital at (A2100). Resident #27 was selected by the Centers of…
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 · D2022-08-11 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility's staff failed to ensure a resident who had elected hospice services, their written care plan included both the most recent hospice care plan as well as the facility's care plan for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #3), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #3 was originally admitted to the facility 1/3/22 and had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included; Afib, heart failure and stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/25/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 11 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #3's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were moderately impaired. Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed she was admitted into hospice services on 4/11/22 for chronic heart failure. A review of the care plan in the clinical record revealed a problem which read; (name of the resident) is receiving hospice care (began…
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 · E2019-09-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plan was developed within 7 (seven) days after completion of the admission assessment for 4 Residents (Resident #24, #19, #14,#17) of 18 residents in the survey sample. The findings included: 1. For Resident #24, the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan. Resident #24 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to, hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of 08/21/2019 was coded with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. In addition, the Minimum Data Set coded Resident #24 as requiring extensive assistance of 2 with bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-09-10 · 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 interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed to ensure that food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions. The finding included: On 09/04/19 at approximately 11:10 AM an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted with Other Staff # 4. The following was observed during the tour: 2 - 4 lb containers of classic Hummus with use by date 9/01/19. (Located in the Walk-in refrigerator) 1 large pan of fresh salmon not dated or labeled. (Located in the walk-in refrigerator) 1 container of ranch dressing opened (1/2 filled) no opened date listed. (Located in the reach-in refrigerator) 3 loaves of bread found in dry storage with expiration dates of 8/31/19. The above findings were discussed with the Food Service Manager (FSD-Other Staff #2) on 09/05/19 at approximately 10:15 AM. She was asked what should have been done with the above concerns. The FSD stated, Anything expired should be discarded and Anything not labeled or dated should be. On 09/10/19 at approximately 3:44 PM a pre-exit interview was conducted with…
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 · D2019-09-10 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to have one (Resident #2) of 18 residents in the survey sample, attend quarterly person centered care plan meetings and failed to conduct quarterly care plan meetings. The findings included: Resident #2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #2 included but not limited to, Acute Kidney Failure and Dementia with lewy bodies. The current Minimum Data Set (MDS), a quarterly revision with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/14/19 coded the resident with a 12 out of a possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #2 was coded as requiring extensive assistance requiring a two person physical assistance with toilet use, bathing, personal hygiene and bed mobility; requiring one person physical assist with transfers and dressing; and eating requiring set-up…
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 · D2019-09-10 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to convey comprehensive care plan goals for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #21), in the survey sample, after she was transferred to an acute care hospital on 8/27/19. The findings included: Resident #21 was originally admitted to the facility 8/7/19, and readmitted on [DATE], after an acute care hospital stay for an infection. The current diagnoses included, osteoarthritis and a pantalar fusion with use of an external fixator of the left ankle and foot. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/14/19, coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #21's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of two people with transfers, extensive assistance of one person with bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-09-10 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility's staff failed to electronically transmit an encoded and completed discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS), assessment to the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid System (CMS), for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #1), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #1 was originally admitted to the facility 3/25/19, and was discharged from the facility to the community 4/12/19. The diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, age related physical abilities and asthma. The admission MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/1/19, coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #1's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring supervision after set-up with locomotion, extensive assistance of two with bed mobility and transfers, extensive assistance with one dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-09-10 · 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 staff interviews, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that the resident assessment was accurately coded for 2 of 18 residents in the survey sample. The assessment inaccurately reflected Resident #33's discharge status; and the facility staff failed to accurately document the number of days that injections of Lovenox were received for Resident #19. The findings included: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included but were not limited to, Stroke and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Resident #33's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of [DATE] was coded with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 14 indicating no cognitive impairment. In addition, the Minimum Data Set coded Resident #33 as requiring extensive assistance of 1 with eating, toilet use and personal hygiene and extensive assistance of 2 with bed mobility, transfer and dressing. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-09-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 18 residents in the survey sample (Resident #24) did not receive as needed anti anxiety medication Ativan for greater than 14 days without the physician and/or prescribing practitioner thoroughly evaluating the resident for the appropriateness of continuous as needed use and indication of the duration of use. The findings included: Resident #24 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to, hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of 08/21/2019 was coded with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. In addition, the Minimum Data Set coded Resident #24 as requiring extensive assistance of 2 with…
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 · D2019-09-10 · 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 and staff interviews the facility staff failed to use clean equipment and perform appropriate hand hygiene during wound care for 1 of 18 residents (Residents #27), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #27 was originally admitted to the facility 8/10/19 and had not been discharged from the facility. The resident's diagnoses included; an abdominal surgical wound related to a ventral hernia causing a small bowel obstruction. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/17/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #27's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring supervision after set-up with eating and walking, supervision of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of one person with locomotion, limited assistance of one with bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. In section M (Skin Condition)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMITH, LINDA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 02/21/2009 |
| TORRES, DAYANARA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 08/21/2014 |
| L'HEUREUX, CATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/25/2014 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Virginia Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 495395. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-05, 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.