Thomas Hospitals Skilled Nursing Unit
333 Laidley Street, Charleston, WV 25322 · Non profit - Corporation · 29 certified beds · (304) 347-6500 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.4% | 79.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.3% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
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.
66.2% 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 201 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.6% 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 127 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 0.68 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 66.2%CMS range 60.7–71.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 8.2–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 34.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 18.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 47.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 89.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 60.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.2%CMS range 2.6–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.63 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 29 beds and averages 16.6 residents a day — about 57% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 7.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 3.04 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.451 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 6.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.99 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 3.50 to 1.84 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and observation, the facility failed to develop and implement person-centered, comprehensive care plans that included individualized activities for 9 of 16 residents reviewed (Residents #30, #29, #6, #1, #32, #27, #37, #38, and #23). This failure resulted in residents, including those with low BIMS scores and those who remained in their rooms, lacking documented activity interventions tailored to their needs and preferences. Resident Identifier: #30, #29, #6, #1, #32, #27, #38, and #23 Facility Census: 16a) On 07/30/2025 at 12:00 PM, a review of 16 resident records revealed that nine (9) lacked individualized activity care plans or interventions, despite cognitive or physical limitations requiring modified or room-based activities.Resident #30 had a low BIMS score and remained in their room and had no documented activity plan or evidence of room-based engagement effort.On 07/30/25 at 12:30 PM, during an interview with the Activities Director (AD) revealed she was unaware of how to create or update activity care plans in the facility's…
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 · E2025-07-31 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — patternHonor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being. The facility did not provide individualized activities and meaningful engagement for residents who remain in their rooms, failing to implement sensory stimulation or one-on-one interventions. In addiiton they failed to offer weekend activity programming for all residents. Facility Census: 16. a) On 07/30/25 The facility reported that it does not provide outings or opportunities for community involvement.On 07/31/25 The facility was unable to provide specific programming for one-on-one or sensory stimulation residents who are either unable or unwilling to leave their rooms.During record review on 07/30/25 at 12:00 PM a review of 16 resident care plans for activities revealed nine (9)lacked individualized activity care plans/interventions, particularly for residents who remain in their rooms or have low BIMS scores.An Interview on 07/30/25 with the Activities Director (AD) revealed that she was unaware of how to create or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-31 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to provide an ongoing activities program that met the individual needs, interests, and abilities of residents in accordance with their comprehensive assessments and care plans. Specifically, the facility failed to offer room-based or sensory stimulation activities for residents who did not leave their rooms, failed to develop individualized care plans for activities for most sampled residents, and did not offer weekend activities. These systemic failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Facility census: 16.a) During the survey on 07/30/25, the following concerns were identified:Facility staff reported that there were no community outings or external engagement opportunities offered to residents.Staff stated they did not provide one-on-one or sensory stimulation activities for residents who are room-bound or chose not to leave their rooms.14 of 16 resident care plans reviewed showed no individualized activities interventions for residents,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-31 · 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, and staff interviews, the facility failed to date and safely store open and prepared food items in multiple refrigeration units; maintain cleanliness of kitchen equipment and surfaces; and implement effective systems to prevent contamination or spoilage of food, including food that may be consumed by residents. These practices created a risk of foodborne illness. Facility Census: 16.On 07/30/2025 at 11:48 AM, the following was observed in the kitchen areas:Walk-In Cooler:A canister of chopped garlic was observed with no open or discard date.Walk-In Freezer:A bag of chicken tenders was stored outside of the original box, open and without a date.An open box of fish filets was observed without an open date and not sealed, exposing contents to possible contamination.Reach-In Cooler:The following perishable food items were observed undated and unsealed:OnionsCheeseLettuceSliced tomatoesSalad mixDishwashing Area:The floor under the dishwasher was visibly soiled with build-up.Racks and surrounding walls were observed to be unclean, indicating a lack of proper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-12 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to have an ongoing activity program that included group activities. This was true for six (6) of six (6) anonymous residents reviewed for the care area of activities during the long - term care survey process. This had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 17. Findings included: a) Resident interviews Anonymous interviews with residents during the initial phase of the survey on 10/10/22 found the unit has no group activities scheduled. One resident said, If they ever had any bingo, I would probably go. At 12:20 PM on 10/11/22, the activities coordinator (AC) #14 said, We have not had any group activities since COVID started, we have not been released to have group activities. Review of the August, September, and October activities calendar with AC #14 confirmed the unit has no group activities listed on the calendar. The AC was asked if residents who were not in isolation and did not have COVID could attend group activities with masks and social distancing?…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-12 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Meats were stored above vegetables and fruit in kitchen refrigeration's. The cook in the kitchen did not have a hair restraint. In addition, the facility failed to ensure residents personal snacks in the pantry refrigerator on the unit were labeled and dated as to when they were prepared and when to discard. This had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #66. Facility census: 17. Findings included: a) Tour of the kitchen The initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Operations Manager (DOM) #6 began at 11:25 AM on 10/10/22 and ended at 11:40 AM on 10/10/22 found the following: --Observation of 1 refrigerator found an unsliced section of roast beef which had not been prepared stored above an open box containing watermelon. --Observation of a second refrigerator found sliced ham and a unsliced section of ham stored above an open box…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-12 · tag F0882 — patternDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews and review of time card, the facility failed to have an Infection Control Preventionist (IP) at least part time. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 17. Findings included: a) Infection Control Preventionist On 10/12/22 at 10:00 AM in an interview with the IP regarding the hours the IP worked in the facility, the IP stated that she worked at the facility approximately 4-6 hours per month. She further stated that she was shared with a sister hospital as well as with the Skilled Care Unit and the rest of the hospital. In addition, she stated she depends on the unit management to complete infection control audits and monitor infection control practices. An attempt was made to obtain the IP's time card to review the hours worked on the Skilled Care Unit. During the interview on 10/12/22 at 10:00 AM, the IP stated she was salaried and therefore did not clock in and/or out so there were no records of the hours she worked in any facility. .
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observation, resident interview, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of nine (9) residents reviewed during the long - term care survey process had a chair in the room to accommodate her needs and personal preferences. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #62. Facility census: 17. Findings included: a) Resident #62 On 10/10/22 at 12:18 PM, the resident said she needs a chair so she can get up out of bed. She said, it needs to be a chair that would allow me to prop up my right leg. The residents' husband was visiting in the room and occupying the only chair in the room which was a hard back chair with arms. The residents' husband added, it could even be a wheelchair with an extension because she has a fractured leg. When asked if she had asked staff for a chair, the resident replied, I did but they told me all the reclining chairs are in use. Observation revealed no other chairs or wheelchairs were present in the residents' room. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-12 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to update the resident's care plan after the resident experienced a fall. This was true for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for the care area of accidents during the long - term care survey process. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 17. Finding included: a) Resident #55 Review of the medical record revealed the resident fell at 4:30 AM on 10/05/22. At 0430 Nursing Assistant entered patient's room. Patient was found on the floor. Notified nursing supervisor and (name of physician.) (Name of physician was apprised of patient hitting her head and the presence of a hematoma. Doctor's order was to continue to monitor patient Patient complained of hitting her head and shoulder on the right side. Placed patient back in bed; applied ice pack to forehead; noted bruise to left arm. Will continue to follow. At 8:12 AM on 10/05/22 the physician documented the resident had a traumatic hematoma of the forehead. On 10/05/22 at 1:20 PM, an x-ray report noted the resident had a minimally displaced fracture of the right…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-12 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for the care area of accidents during the long - term care survey process received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. Neurological checks were not started after the resident had a fall, hit her head, resulting in a hematoma. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 17. Finding included: a) Resident #55 Review of the medical record revealed the resident fell at 4:30 AM on 10/05/22. At 0430 Nursing Assistant entered patient's room. Patient was found on the floor. Notified nursing supervisor and (name of physician.) (Name of physician was apprised of patient hitting her head and the presence of a hematoma. Doctor's order was to continue to monitor patient Patient complained of hitting her head and shoulder on the right side. Placed patient back in bed; applied ice pack to forehead; noted bruise to left arm. Will continue to follow. At 8:12 AM on 10/05/22 the physician documented 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 · D2022-10-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored for Resident #57. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #57. Facility census: 17. Findings included: a) Resident #57 On 10/12/22 at 10:34 AM during medication pass, observed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 remove a cup of medications from the back pocket of her uniform. When asked why the prepoured medications were stored in her uniform, RN #1 explained the medications were poured and found Resident #57 was not available to take the medications. An interview with the Unit Manager (UM) #15 on 10/12/22 at 10:34 AM regarding RN #1 putting poured medications in uniform pocket stated that the medications should have been placed in the locked box outside Resident #57's room and not in RN #1's uniform. .
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-07-14 · tag F0882 — widespreadDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the employee, who was designated as the Infection Preventionist for the unit, had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the Infection Preventionist was a member of the Skilled Nursing Unit Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee and reported on the infection control program, to the committee, on a regular basis . This practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Facility census: 11. Findings included: a) Infection Preventionist training An interview, with the Infection Preventionist, on 07/13/21 at 3:05 PM, revealed the employee had not completed a specialized training in infection prevention and control. A review of the information provided for review, dated 2019, provided no evidence of a specialized training. Training included reporting and data collection with no specified length of event, and educational activity for continuing education. An interview with the DON, on 07/13/21 at 07:50 AM, revealed 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 · E2021-07-14 · tag F0868 — patternHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility documentation review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee that consisted of the minimum required members. The facility failed to ensure the Administrator, Owner or a Board member participated and was included as a member of the Skilled Nursing Unit (SNU) quarterly QAA committee. The failed practice had the potential to affect more than unlimited number of residents on the SNU. Facility census: 11. Findings included: a) Skilled Nursing Unit QAA Committee A facility document titled Health Facility Key Personnel was reviewed, on 07/13/21 at 10:46 AM. The document was provided by the Director of Nursing DON and listed the SNU QAA Committee members. The Health Facility Key Personnel form excluded the Administrator as a member of the SNU QAA Committee. The SNU QAA Committee members were as followed: Director of Nursing DON Minimum Data Set MDS Coordinator Social Worker Activities Director Lead Physical Therapist Occupational Therapist Medical Director Dietician An additional facility document titled, SNU…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-07-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately ensure a resident's advance directive was correct on the information board at the nurses' desk. The facility failed to ensure the advance directive was completed and documented in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR). This was true for one (1) of 11 residents reviewed for advance directives. Resident identifier: #7. Facility census: 11. Findings included: a) Resident #7 A record review, on 07/13/21 at 8:15 AM, revealed a Skilled Nursing Unit admission Communication form in the medical record that stated, Do Not Resuscitate DNR. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, on 07/13/21 at 8:25 AM, revealed the Information board located at the Nurses' desk was color coded as to a resident's current resuscitation status. RN #1 stated, if the Resident is a full code their name would be written in black on the information board and if the resident is a DNR their name would be written in red on the board. An observation of the information board, on 07/13/21 at 8:30 AM, revealed Resident #7's name…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to WVU MEDICINE — 7 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEST VIRGINIA UNITED HEALTH SYSTEM, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 05/01/2024 |
| BARKER, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| BREEDLOVE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| CHALLA, KISHORE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| ELLIS, TERRELL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| EPPERLY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FAIRLESS, LYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| HIGGS, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| KAWASH, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| LAVENSKI, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| MAYFIELD, ANGELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| PACK, ASHLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| ROBINSON, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| ROSENCRANCE, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| SAYRE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| SLAUGHTER, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| STOVER, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WRIGHT, ALBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/05/2026 |
| FRANCISCO, PAIGE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/05/2024 |
| GIZZI, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| BAKER TILLY ADVISORY GROUP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2024 |
| MEEKS, JAIME | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 46 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
What families pay in WV
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the West Virginia Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 515110. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.