The Virginia Home
1101 Hampton St, Richmond, VA 23220 · Non profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (804) 359-4093 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (16% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2023
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
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 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.8% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 1.6% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.8% | 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 | 0.8% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.6% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.6% | 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 | 2.5% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.2% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.9% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.74 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.53 | 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 130 beds and averages 129.1 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 4.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.18 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 4.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.82 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 16% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-07-19 · 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 document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to protect three of 31 residents in the survey sample from abuse (Residents #60, #50 and #35), which resulted in harm cited at past non-compliance. The findings include: 1. The facility failed to protect Resident #60 from sexual abuse from CNA (certified nursing assistant) #5. A review of the facility synopsis of event dated 4/10/23 revealed Incident Type: allegation of abuse/mistreatment. Resident #60 reported an incident to the nursing supervisor. He stated that while getting his brief changed two days ago, his CNA (certified nursing assistant) mouth touched his penis for two seconds. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/6/23, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring total dependence for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-07-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to prevent accidents that resulted in fractured bones for two of 31 residents in the survey sample, Residents #43 and #71. This was cited at harm past non-compliance. The findings include: 1. For Resident #43 (R43), the facility staff failed to transfer the resident with a Hoyer mechanical lift, per the resident's plan of care. This resulted in a fall and R43 sustained a fractured clavicle. R43's comprehensive care plan dated 7/31/17 documented, (R43) requires assistance with ADL (activities of daily living) tasks r/t (related to) Dx (diagnoses): Cerebral Palsy, Spasticity and Mood Disorder. Approaches/Tasks: FULL MECHANICAL LIFT-Hoyer Lift for all transfers. R43's [NAME] dated 1/28/23 documented, Transferred using full mechanical lift (Hoyer). A review of R43's clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 1/28/23 that documented, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) reported res (resident)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-19 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to completely develop a policy for the monthly drug regimen reviews with times frames for the different steps in the process, including identifying an irregularity that requires urgent actions to protect the resident for five residents reviewed for medications, (Residents #18, #38, #43, #83 and #109), in the survey sample of 31 residents. The findings include: The facility, Consultant Pharmacist policy failed to include any documentation regarding the timeframe that a pharmacy recommendation is required to be provided to the physician and acted upon by the physician. The policy did not meet regulatory requirements of specifying those time frames for the different steps in the process and steps the pharmacist must take when he or she identifies an irregularity that requires urgent action to protect the resident. During the unnecessary medication review and drug regimen review, the following resident records were reviewed: Resident #18's clinical record was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-19 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure one of 31 residents in the survey sample was free from an unnecessary medication; Resident #38. The findings include: For Resident #38 (R38), the facility staff failed to monitor the resident for side effects (bleeding) from the anticoagulant (blood thinning) medication Eliquis (1). A review of R38's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 11/3/20 for Eliquis five milligrams by mouth two times a day for pulmonary embolism. A review of R38's MARs (medication administration records) for May 2023 through July 2023 revealed the resident was administered Eliquis five milligrams two times each day. Further review of R38's clinical record (including the MARs and nurses' notes for May 2023 through July 2023) failed to reveal the resident was monitored for side effects (bleeding) from Eliquis. On 7/19/23 at 9:03 a.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2. RN #2 stated residents that are administered anticoagulants should be monitored for bleeding every shift. RN #2 stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-19 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of facility's documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to promote and enhance each resident's right to a dignified and respected existence for three of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident #60, #50 and #35. The findings included: 1. For Resident #60, the facility staff failed to ensure the resident was treated with dignity and respect. The resident had been sexually abused by a staff member. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the facility synopsis of event dated 4/10/23 revealed Incident Type: allegation of abuse/mistreatment. (Resident #60) reported an incident to the nursing supervisor. He stated that while getting his brief changed two days ago, his CNA (certified nursing assistant) mouth touched his penis for two seconds. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/6/23, coded the resident as scoring…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · 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
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for one of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident #38. The findings include: For Resident #38 (R38), the facility staff failed to implement the resident's comprehensive care plan for anticoagulant medication monitoring. R38's comprehensive care plan dated 7/31/20 documented, (R38) is on anticoagulant therapy .Monitor for side effects and effectiveness Q (every)-SHIFT . A review of R38's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 11/3/20 for Eliquis (1) five milligrams by mouth two times a day for pulmonary embolism. A review of R38's MARs (medication administration records) for May 2023 through July 2023 revealed the resident was administered Eliquis five milligrams two times each day. Further review of R38's clinical record (including the MARs and nurses' notes for May 2023 through July 2023) failed to reveal the resident was monitored for side effects (bleeding) from Eliquis. On 7/19/23 at 9:03 a.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · 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 staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan for two of 31 residents in the survey sample, Residents #6 and #34. The findings include: 1. For Resident #6 (R6), the facility staff failed to review and revise the care plan after the resident returned from the hospital with kidney stones. The hospital Discharge summary dated , 4/24/2023, documented in part, Discharge Diagnoses/Plan: Complicated UTI (urinary tract infection) in the setting of right-sided obstructive ureteral stone with hydronephrosis treated with cystoscopy and stent and IV (intravenous) antibiotics. Completed total of 14 days of antibiotics, discharged on oral ciprofloxacin to cover both Citrobacter and Enterococcus. Patient will need outpatient follow-up with urology for definitive stone management. The hospital Discharge summary dated , 5/19/2023, documented in part, Discharge Diagnosis/Plan: Sepsis due to urinary tract…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to store a resident's nebulizer mask in a sanitary manner for one of 31 residents in the survey sample, Resident #93. The findings include: For Resident # 93 (R93) the facility staff failed to cover the nebulizer mask when it was not in use. R93 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but was not limited to wheezing. Resident #93's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 07/06/2023, coded Resident #93 as scoring a 15 out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. On 07/17/23 at approximately 3:17 p.m., an observation of R93's room revealed a nebulizer mask on R93's desk uncovered. On 07/18/23 at approximately 8:21 a.m. and 12:35 p.m., observations of R93's room revealed a nebulizer mask on R93's desk uncovered. The physician's order for Resident # 93 documented in part, Albuterol…
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 · E2022-02-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined facility staff failed to store and prepare food in a sanitary manner. The facility staff failed to ensure a table-top and floor mixer that were ready for use, were cleaned and free from food debris. The facility staff failed to maintain a 30 inch fan blowing on clean dishes and cups, located in the clean dish area of the kitchen, clean and free of dust. The facility staff failed to ensure a gallon container of apple cider dressing with an open date of 12/27/2021 was available for use. The findings include: On 02/01/2022 at approximately 11:20 a.m., an observation of the facility's kitchen was conducted with OSM [other staff member] # 1, nutritional service director, with the following concerns: 1. Observation of the table-top mixer located in the facility's kitchen was conducted with OSM # 1. Observation of the table-top mixer revealed the bowl and whisk were cover with plastic wrap. When asked if the mixer was cleaned and ready for use OSM # 1 stated yes. After OSM # 1 removed the plastic from 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 · E2020-02-20 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 the facility staff failed to provide the required written notification of a hospital transfer to the resident representative RR) upon a transfer to the hospital for four of 32 residents in the survey sample; Residents #45, #44, #31, and #116. The facility staff failed to provide written notification to the Resident #45's resident representative (RR) of hospital transfers on 12/13/19 and 1/1/20. The facility staff failed to provide written notification to the resident representative (RR) of Resident #44's hospital transfer on 1/31/20. The facility staff failed to evidence that written notification of transfer was provided to the resident or resident's representative for a facility-initiated transfer on 12/11/2019 for resident #31 and failed to provide Resident # 116 and Resident # 116's representative written notification of a facility-initiated transfer on 11/27/19 for Resident #116. The findings include: 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 · E2020-02-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure the secure storage of controlled medications and failed ensure prefilled syringes were labeled with an expiration date, not expired and not available for use in two of two medication rooms observed, (the third and fifth floor medications rooms). A black metal box, one containing a 30 ml (milliliter) bottle of lorazepam was observed inside the third floor medication room refrigerator and two 30 ml (milliliter) bottles of lorazepam and twenty, 1 ml syringes of lorazepam were observed inside the fifth floor medication room refrigerator. The black metal boxes were not secured and could easily be removed. In the fifth floor medication room [ROOM NUMBER] ml [milliliter] syringes filled with sterile water without an expiration date were available for use. The findings include: On [DATE] at 2:50 p.m., an observation of the facility's medication room on the third floor was conducted with LPN…
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 · E2020-02-20 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and employee record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to meet mandatory training requirements for eight of 10 CNA (certified nursing assistant) educational records reviewed, (CNA #6, #1, #2, #3, #4, #8 , #9 and #10). The findings include: On 2/19/20, educational records of 10 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistants) were reviewed. The following concerns were identified: - CNA #6, for the anniversary year of 10/30/18 to 10/30/19, did not have all the required 12 hours of annual training. CNA #6, had 9 hours and did not have the required annual training for abuse. - CNA #1, for the anniversary year of 2/16/19 to 2/16/20, did not have the required annual abuse training. - CNA #2, for the anniversary year of 7/7/18 to 7/7/19, did not have all the required 12 hours of annual training. CNA #2, had 6 hours and did not have the required annual training for abuse and dementia care. - CNA #3, for the anniversary year of 5/10/18 to 5/10/19, did not have all the required 12 hours of annual training. CNA #3, had 4.75 hours 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 before2020-02-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, and facility document review it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain the dignity for one of 32 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 5. The facility staff posted pictures of Resident #5 with positioning instructions and the residents name on the wall above the resident's bed. The postings could be viewed by visitors or staff not involved in the residents care and Resident #5 stated she did not like the postings on the wall. The findings include: Resident # 5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: cerebral palsy [1] and pressure ulcer of the sacral [tail bone] area. Resident # 5's most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/14/2019, coded Resident # 5 as scoring a 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 15 - being cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Resident #…
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 · D2020-02-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, and facility document review it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain privacy for one of 32 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 5. The facility staff posted positioning instructions with pictures of Resident #5 and the residents name on the residents wall beside the resident's bed. The posted care instructions and pictures of the resident could be easily viewed by visitors or staff not involved in the residents care. The findings include: Resident # 5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: cerebral palsy [1] and pressure ulcer of the sacral [tail bone] area. Resident # 5's most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/14/2019, coded Resident # 5 as scoring a 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 15 - being cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Resident # 5 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in VA
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 49E084. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-07-19, 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.