Snyder Nursing Home
11 North Broad St, Salem, VA 24153 · Non profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (540) 389-6305 Medicaid only — no Medicare
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 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 | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.5% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 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 | 8.4% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 25.2% | 18.7% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.1% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.6% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.0% | 20.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.2% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.4% | 14.2% | 17.1% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.61 | 1.52 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% 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 | 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 45 beds and averages 39.8 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 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 3.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.76 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-10-29 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — widespreadHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review the facility staff failed to provide evidence that Advance Care planning information was provided to residents/resident representatives upon admission and reviewed periodically. The findings included:During clinical record reviews, each clinical record reviewed was found to contain a form entitled, Advance Directives/Medical Treatment Decisions Acknowledge of Receipt which read in part, Resident Understanding Acknowledgement-Advance Directive/Medical Treatment Decision. This is to acknowledge that I have been informed in writing in a language that I understand of my rights and all rules and regulations to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the right to formulate and to issue advance directions to be followed should I become decisionally incapable. I understand it is my responsibility to provide to the facility copies of all pertinent documentation which verify advance directives formulated and/or issued by me for placement in my…
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 · F2025-10-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — widespreadDevelop 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 interviews, clinical record reviews, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to develop comprehensive care plans that included the residents code status for all current residents of the facility.The findings included:During the clinical record reviews, the survey team was unable to identify any information regarding the resident's current code status on the comprehensive care plans.On 10/27/2025 at 5:10 p.m., during an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 this staff stated they did not include the residents code status on their comprehensive care plan. On 10/28/2025 at 8:20 a.m., RN #2 approached the surveyor, and stated she had updated the residents care plans to include their current code status. On 10/28/25 at 2:30 p.m., during a meeting with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator the issue with the resident's code status not being care planned was reviewed. On 10/28/25 at 4:40 p.m., the DON provided the survey team with a copy of their policy with the subject Comprehensive Care Plan. This policy read in part, .Each resident will have a…
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 · D2025-10-29 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
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, the facility staff failed to provide a valid basis for a declination of readmission of the resident after a hospitalization with return anticipated and the facility staff failed to develop and implement an appropriate discharge process to the resident and/or resident representative for (1) one of (2) closed record reviews, Resident #45. The findings included:For Resident #45 the facility staff declined readmission following a hospital stay with a paid bed hold due to the resident electing hospice services. readmission was declined despite the facility offering individualized hospice service contracts. Resident #45's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Multiple Sclerosis, Paraplegia, Osteoarthritis, Repeated Falls, Weakness, Depression, TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack), Cerebral Infarction, History of Disease of Digestive Tract, Anxiety Disorder, and Congestive Heart Failure. The most recent…
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 before2025-10-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the highest practicable well-being for 2 of 16 current residents of the facility. Resident #39 and #2.The findings included:1. Resident #39 was observed with a chair alarm in place. The clinical record did not include a current provider order for a chair alarm. Resident #39's diagnoses included adult failure to thrive and muscle weakness. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #39's annual minimum data set assessment (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/03/25 was coded 1/1/2 to indicate Resident #39 had problems with long- and short-term memory and was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. Section GG0120 (mobility devices) was checked to indicate this resident used a wheelchair. Section P (restraints and alarms) was coded to indicate the resident used a bed alarm daily. Resident #39's comprehensive care plan included the focus area at risk for falls. Interventions included bed alarm. There was no intervention for a chair alarm.…
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 · D2025-10-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and/or accurate clinical record for (1) of (16) sampled residents, Resident #3. The findings included:For Resident #3 the facility staff failed to accurately document the resident's fluid intake on the TAR (treatment administration record) as indicated by a medical provider order for fluid restriction. Resident #3's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses that included but were not limited to Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, Hypothyroidism, Chronic Kidney Disease-Stage 4, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. The most recent quarterly minimum data set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/7/25, assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 13 out of 15 for cognitive abilities, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A medical provider orders with a start date of 9/15/25 read in part, .1500 mL (milliliters) fluid restriction…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-23 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive person-centered plan of care for 3 of 14 residents in the survey sample, Residents #10, #18, and #22. The findings included: 1. For Resident #10, the facility staff failed to revise the comprehensive person-centered care plan following the development of an unstageable pressure injury. Resident #10's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to Alzheimer's Disease, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Chronic Congestive Heart Failure. The most recent annual minimum data set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 5/16/23 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 8 out of 15 indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of Resident #10's clinical record revealed a report entitled Weekly Pressure Ulcer Progress Report indicating a 1 cm x 1 cm unstageable wound was identified to 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 · Dcited before2023-08-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow the providers orders for 1 of 14 residents, Resident #20. The findings included: For Resident #20, the facility staff failed to administer the medication Metoprolol per the providers orders. Resident #20's diagnoses included, but were not limited to hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #20's quarterly MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 07/12/23 included a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of a possible 15 points. Resident #20's clinical record included an order for Metoprolol 50 mg take 1 tablet by mouth every day for hypertension hold if systolic is less than 90 AND diastolic less than 60. A review of Resident #20's medication administration records for August 2023 revealed that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 held Resident #20's Metoprolol for a blood pressure of 106/68 on 08/20/23 for the administration time of 8:00 a.m. Resident #20's comprehensive care plan included the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, interviews with local health department staff, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention program for preventing and controlling infection and communicable diseases during an identified outbreak of COVID-19. Facility staff failed to follow facility policy and procedure and CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidance related to cohorting COVID-19 positive and untested, asymptomatic residents together when vacant rooms were available creating the likelihood of the resident being exposed to and contracting COVID-19 for 1 of 29 current residents residing in the facility, Resident #18. Facility staff failed to follow CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and CDC guidance related to performing COVID-19 testing for exposed residents and staff following residents testing positive for COVID-19 on [DATE] and [DATE]. At the time of the survey, two (2) residents were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-02-11 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — patternPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and review of facility documents, the facility staff failed to conduct COVID-19 testing for asymptomatic staff based on the county positivity rate for 30 of 60 staff members. The findings included: The facility staff failed to conduct routine COVID-19 testing for asymptomatic staff members based on the county positivity rate for staff members that have not previously tested positive. At the time of the survey, there were no residents or staff positive for COVID-19. Testing totals in the facility indicated a cumulative total of 24 COVID-19 positive residents with three (3) deaths and a cumulative total of 30 positive staff members. On 2/09/21 at 2:15pm during the Entrance Conference with the survey team, the administrator stated the facility is testing staff based on signs and symptoms only. Survey team requested the current county COVID-19 positivity rate, administrator stated the current rate for the City of (name omitted) is 6.7% and the facility considers themselves to be in the low range for testing. Administrator stated they are using the VDH (Virginia…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-02-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers receive necessary treatment to promote healing as evidenced by failure to follow physician's orders for 1 of 14 residents, Resident #8. The findings included: For Resident #8, the facility staff failed to follow physician's orders for treatment to a stage II pressure area to the left buttock on 2/08/21 and 2/09/21. Resident #8's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to Alzheimer's Disease with Late Onset, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions due to Known Physiological Condition, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without Complications, Muscle Weakness Generalized, and Unspecified Urinary Incontinence. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/15/20 coded the resident as being severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making with short term and long term memory loss in section C, Cognitive Patterns. Resident #8 was coded as being totally dependent on staff for 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.
“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 49E076. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-29, 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.