Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehab Smithfield

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

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.

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.

57.6% 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 215 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.2% 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 91 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.84 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 34 beds and averages 29.5 residents a day — about 87% 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 4.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.04 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.58 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.22 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2024-04-12 · tag F0575 — pattern
  Post a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and information obtain during the Resident Council interview, the facility staff failed to ensure residents of the facility were aware and knew the location of the list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups. The findings included: During the Resident Council interview conducted on 04/10/24 at approximately 01:38 PM four residents were present. All the residents in the interview were unable to verbalize the location of the list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups. Two random residents were also interviewed (residents not in the group interview). They were Resident #15 and #19. Resident #15's BIMS score was 14. He was interviewed on 4/10/24 at approximately 3:05 PM. The resident stated he was unaware of the listings. Resident #19 was interviewed on 4/10/24 at approximately 3:15 PM and he stated were not aware of he was unaware of the list. An interview was conducted with the Activity Director and the Assistant…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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 interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 27 residents in the survey sample, (Resident #5) were given the opportunity to formulate an advance directive. The findings included: Resident #5 was originally admitted to the nursing facility on 09/25/21. Diagnosis for Resident #5 included but are not limited to Hypertension. The quarterly revised Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/06/24 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 12 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #5 cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. A review of the clinical record revealed that there was no advance directive for Resident #5. On 04/10/24 at approximately 11:48 AM., Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was approached for assistance in locating Resident #5's advanced directive. RN #1 looked through an advance directive binder for a hard copy and the Resident's medical record with no success. The RN failed to provide evidence…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop 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 a family interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the person-centered care plan to include hospice services for 1 of 27 residents (Resident #11), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #11 was originally admitted to the facility 4/15/22 and the resident had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included dementia and dysphagia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/5/23 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 12 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #11's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. It was noted during the interview with Resident #11 that she would lose her train of thought and switch from subject to subject. In sections GG the resident was coded as dependent upon staff for most activities of daily living. She was also coded for set-up assistance only with eating. In section O (Special Treatments and Programs) at K1, 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to ensure a multi-dose vial of Tuberculin, a purified protein derivative was dated when opened, to ensure it was discarded in 30 days and did not remain available for administration. The findings included: The medication storage task was conducted on 4/11/24 at approximately 11:50 AM with Registered Nurse (RN) #2. Observations were made of opened biologicals in the medication refrigerator which included an opened bottle of Tuberculin, purified protein derivative. The date on the Tuberculin box label as sent from the pharmacy to the facility for house stock was January 2024. A further review failed to reveal the date the multi-dose vial of Tuberculin, a purified protein derivative had been opened. RN #2 stated she did not know when it had been opened or for whom it was opened for since neither the box nor the vial was dated. An interview was also conducted with RN #1 on 4/11/24 at approximately 12:30 PM. RN #1 stated she received information that the undated multi-vial of Tuberculin, purified protein derivative can…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0849 — isolated
  Arrange 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 a family interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of the Hospice policy; the facility staff failed to a method of communication after visits were available to the facility staff and to ensure hospice services were coordinated to ensure hospice staff assisted with meal consumption for 1 of 27 residents (Resident #11), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #11 was originally admitted to the facility 4/15/22 and the resident had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included dementia and dysphagia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/5/23 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 12 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #11's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. It was noted during the interview with Resident #11 that she would lose her train of thought and switch from subject to subject. In sections GG the resident was coded as dependent upon staff for most activities 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide 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 and staff interview, the facility's staff failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precaution signage was initiated to prevent the spread of infection and or hospitalizations for 3 of 27 residents (Resident #14, Resident #15, and Resident#16), in the survey sample. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to post precautionary signage alerting facility staff, visitors, and outside vendors of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for Resident #14. Resident # 14 was originally admitted to the facility 10/24/23 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; Chronic Kidney Disease. The quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/23/24 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 00: This indicated Resident #14 cognitive abilities for daily decision making were severely impaired. Section K (Swallowing/Nutritional Status) coded the resident as having a Feeding Tube.…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2021-02-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  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 complaint investigation, a complainant interview, staff interviews, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility's staff failed to notify the resident representative of a change in condition for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #21), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #21 was originally admitted to the facility 4/24/20, and was discharged [DATE], return not anticipated therefore; a closed record review was conducted. Resident #21's diagnoses included; a total right knee replacement, diabetes and hyperlipidemia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/30/21 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 bed mobility,…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2021-02-25 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  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 facility documentation, the facility staff failed to ensure Medicare Beneficiary Notices in accordance with applicable Federal regulations, were issued to 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #13) out of 20 in the survey sample. The facility staff failed to issue an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) letter to Resident #2 who was discharged from skilled services with Medicare days remaining. The findings included: 1. Resident #2 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/16/20. Diagnosis for Resident #2 included but not limited to Generalized Muscle Weakness. Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) an OBRA admission Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 11/21/20 coded Resident #2 a 15 out of a possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicated no cognitive impairment. Review of the SNF Beneficiary Notification Review provided by the facility to surveyor, was noted that Resident #2 was not listed for having…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2021-02-25 · tag F0622 — isolated
  Not 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 clinical record review, staff interviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to convey the summary of goals of the comprehensive plan of care upon transfer/discharge for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #23) in the survey sample. The findings include: The facility staff failed to include in the transfer summary indication that the facility staff conveyed to the receiving providers the resident's comprehensive care plan goals at the time of discharge to the local hospital on [DATE] or as soon as possible to the actual time of transfer for Resident #23. Resident #23 was admitted to the nursing facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lung and bladder cancer. Resident #23's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was an Annual dated [DATE] and coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 00 out of a possible score of 15 which indicated the resident was severely impaired in the skills for daily decision making. The nurse's notes dated…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2021-02-25 · tag F0623 — isolated
  Provide 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility document review the facility staff failed to notify the office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in writing of applicable discharges for 1 of 20 residents in the survey sample (Resident #23). The findings included: The facility staff failed to notify the office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of Resident #23's discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #23 was admitted to the nursing facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lung and bladder cancer. Resident #23's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was an Annual dated [DATE] and coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 00 out of a possible score of 15 which indicated the resident was severely impaired in the skills for daily decision making. The nurse's notes dated [DATE] indicated the nurse was called to the room by other clinical staff members. Resident was sitting in a wheelchair in obvious distress. He was transferred back…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to RIVERSIDE HEALTH SYSTEM — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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