St. Mary's Hospital
2900 First Street, Huntington, WV 25702 · Non profit - Corporation · 19 certified beds · (304) 526-8983 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0606), cited Apr 2026
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.6% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 1.7% | 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.
78.0% 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 166 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.0% 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 50 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.
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 | 78.0%CMS range 71.1–84.0 | 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 | 11.3%CMS range 7.8–16.5 | 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 | 68.0% | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 92.2% | 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 | 98.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.6%CMS range 3.1–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.59 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-15 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — patternNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on document review and staff interview, the facility failed to check the nurse-aide registry when ancillary are first hired. This was true for 2 of 2 ancillary staff. Facility census 13.a) On 04/14/2026 at approximately 1:10 p.m., there was no documentation readily available for Maintenance Tech #45 and Housekeeper #46 that the employees were checked on the Nurse Aide registry. b) On 04/14/26 at approximately 1:13 PM, conducted an interview with the HR Generalist and Educator (Employee #44) for the unit. Employee #44 stated that they do not check the Nurse Aide registry with ancillary staff (Maintenance Tech #45 and Housekeeper #46). The deficiency was verified with the HR Generalist and Educator along with unit Clinical Manager. c) On 04/15/26 at approximately 2:30 p.m., the deficiency was acknowledged by the unit's Administrative staff upon the exit interview.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-26 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of skilled nursing unit's NA Role Profile Summary, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the staff had the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs. This was true for four (4) of seven (7) nursing staff reviewed for competenencies. Staff Identifiers: NA #12, #45, #2, and #13. Facility census: 12. Findings included: a) NA Role Profile Summary: NA Role Profile Summary dated 01/10/18 revealed HSAF.-16015 Personal Protective Equipment Demonstrates appropriate selection of personal protective equipment (PPE). Identifies and observes the requirement to select, apply and remove the appropriate PPE for personal and patient safety HPSG-16183 Hand Hygiene Complies with current World Health organization (WHO) hand hygiene practices NRSPRO-13769 Urinary Catheter Care Performs perineal and catheter care .HSAF-15943 Infection Control Follows organization's infection control olicies and procedures, including proper hand hygiene. b) NA #12: NA #12 had no competencies for Donning and Doffing…
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 before2025-02-26 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based upon observation and staff interview, the facility failed to properly store pre-cooked breakfast sausage links by not providing an expiration date after opening and removing the product from its original packaging. This had the potential to affect residents of the facility who might consume this breakfast sausage. Facility census: 12. Findings included: During observation of the kitchen freezers and refrigerators on 02/25/25 around 11:00 AM, a partial bag of opened, pre-cooked breakfast sausage links was found on the top shelf of a cart in one of the walk-in refrigerators. The bag contained no expiration date. When this was pointed out to the Dietary Director, he immediately threw the bag into the trash.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-26 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide twelve (12) hours of in-service training for nurse aides to include dementia, or specific care to the unit's resident population This was true for five (5) of five (5) Nurse Aides (NAs) reviewed. Staff identifiers: NA #3, #12, #45, #2, #13. Facility census: 12. Findings included: a) NA #3: Education report showed a total of 5 hours of education for 2024, and did not contain education on dementia care. b) NA #12: Education report showed a total of < 5 hours of education for 2024, and did not contain education on dementia care. c) NA #45 Education report showed a total of < 5 hours of education for 2024, and did not contain education on dementia care. d) NA #2 Education report showed a total of < 5 hours of education for 2024, and did not contain education on dementia care. e) NA #13 Education report showed a total of 10.8 hours of education for 2024, and did not contain education on dementia care. On 02/26/25 at approximately 1:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Clinical Manager #6 regarding education…
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 · D2025-02-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable home like environment by having debris in the return vents in Resident's #109 room and Resident's #108 room and bathroom. This was a random opportunity for discovery during the long term care survey process. Resident identifier: #108 and #109. Facility census: 12. Findings included: a) Resident #108 On 02/26/25 at 12:59 PM during the initial tour of the facility, it was observed that Resident #108 bathroom and room had vents full of debris and needed to be cleaned. b) Resident #109 On 02/26/25 at 1:15 PM during the initial tour of the facility, it was observed in Resident # 109 room had vents full of debris and needed to be cleaned. On 02/26/25 at approximately 2:00 PM, during an interview with the Clinical Manager #6, who confirmed the vents needed cleaning, and contacted maintenance.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-26 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolatedNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
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 complete the WV Cares report prior to new staff reporting to work. This was found to be true for three (3) of eight (8) staff files reviewed. Staff identifiers: #37, #3, and #12. Facility census: 12. Findings included: a) Dietician #37 Dietitician #37 started to work on 08/12/24. WV Cares investigation was never completed. During an interview with the Clinical Manager #6 on 2/26/25 at approximately 9:35 AM, the Manager stated, I forgot to do the WV Cares upon her transfer from the Dietary Department to the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). b) NA #3 NA #3 started to work on 01/22/24. Her clearance letter from WV Cares was dated 01/31/24. c) NA #12 NA #12 started to work on 01/25/21. Her clearance letter from WV Cares was dated 01/28/21. During an interview with the Clinical Manager #6 on 02/26/25 at approximately 9:40 am, when asked why these were not done prior to employment, Clinical Manager #6 did not have an answer. Additionally, the facility's Abuse and Neglect policy requires WV Cares to be complete on prospective…
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 · D2025-02-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan for pain for Resident #3. This failed practice was found true for one (1) of eight (8) care plans reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident Identifier: #3 Facility census:12 Findings included: a) Resident #3 During record review on 02/26/24 of Resident #3's orders revealed the following order; Norco 5/325 one (1) tablet by mouth three (3) times a day PRN (as needed) start date was 02/03/25. Further review of the care plan revealed there was nothing in the care plan regarding pain. On 02/26/25 at 12:41 PM during an interview with the Clinical Manager #6 who stated no its' not in the care plan, but it should be in here. The Clinical Manager #6 confirmed the care plan did not contain anything regarding pain.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-01-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to dispose of expired single-serve condiments stored in the resident refrigerator in the unit pantry. This was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility Census: 9. Findings Included: a) Resident Refrigerator On [DATE] at 11:10 AM, a tour of the unit pantry was completed. The tour found the resident refrigerator containing multiple expired single-serve packets of condiments. The expiration dates found were [DATE] on the salad dressings and [DATE] for the tartar sauces. b) Facility Policy A review of the facility policy entitled Maintaining Kitchenettes dated 08/2021 II D h. states, Do not keep patient silverware or condiments from the trays on the unit. (Typed as written.) During the tour on [DATE] at 11:10 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #13 was present. Upon discovering the expired condiments, RN #13 stated, let me get rid of all of them. On [DATE] at 11:30 AM, 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 · D2024-01-17 · 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, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC line) care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of one (1) residents receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Resident identifier: #57. Facility census: 9. Findings included: a) Resident #57 Review of the facility's policy titled, Cental Venous Catheters - Dressing Change, Maintenance, and Removal, with formation date November 1995 and most recent revision date May 2021 gave instructions to aspirate blood for verification of placement prior to infusion of medications. The facility's policy also gave guidelines to scrub the catheter hub with sterile alcohol swab for at least 15 seconds using a twisting motion after removing the end cap of the catheter. Inablility to aspirate blood can indicate catheter malposition. Wiping the catheter hub with an alcohol swab when the cap is removed will prevent potential pathogens from entering the catheter. On 01/17/24 at 1:25 PM, Registered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control standards for the storage of clean linen. This was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents at the facility. Facility Census: 9. Findings Included: On 01/15/24 at 1:02 PM, the resident bath/shower room was toured. The tour found folded clean towels uncovered laying on the dirty linen cart lid and on the top of the biohazard box sitting in the floor. On 01/15/24 at 1:04 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #13 was notified. RN #13 stated, those aren't supposed to be there .I'll take care of it. On 01/15/24 at 1:20 PM, the Clinical Manager (CM) #18 was notified and confirmed the clean linen should not be stored in the resident bath/shower room. No further information was obtained during the survey process.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-17 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 obtain proper consent or declination for a COVID-19 booster. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of immunizations. Resident identifier: #57. Facility census: 9. Findings included: a) Resident #57 The facility's policy and procedure titled, Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019, with formation date January 2021 and last revised January 2024, stated that residents of the Skilled Nursing Unit would be screened and offered COVID-19 immunization while in the skilled nursing unit. Review of Resident #57's medical records showed an undated Skilled Nursing Unit Belongings Sheet that had a written notation that said, Hasn't had last booster of COVID shot. Would like to get it. Further review of Resident #57's medical records showed an Assessment and Consent or Refusal for COVID-19 Vaccination form dated 01/02/24. The consent section of the form was signed by the resident and marked out with the word error written. The refusal section of the form was checked and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-02-26 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon record review, observation, staff interview, and interview with a visitor, the facility failed to ensure daily nurse staffing information was readily available in a format that was clear and readable as found during the staffing review of the long term care survey process. Facility census: 12 Findings included: a) Staffing Reports for 06/30/24 through 07/07/24 It is unclear what the census was for 07/06/24. Nursing hours were not totaled daily. Staffing sheet contained information for the whole month. b) Staffing Reports for 10/27/24 through 11/02/24 Staffing sheet contains information for the whole month. Nursing hours are not totaled daily. c) Staffing Reports for 11/17/24 through 11/23/24: Staffing sheet contains information for the whole month. Nursing hours are not totaled daily. d) Staffing Reports for 12/22/24 through 12/29/24: Staffing sheet contains information for the whole month. Nursing hours are not totaled daily. It was unclear what the census was on 12/24/24, 12/26/24 and 12/28/24. On 02/26/25 at approximately 11:25 AM, conducted an interview with Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST MARYS MEDICAL CENTER, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 12/28/1990 |
| MARSHALL HEALTH NETWORK INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/2023 |
| WARD, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/05/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 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 515113. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-15, 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.