Crestview Manor Healthcare

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.

35.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 73.9% 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 23 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 72 beds and averages 66.9 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% 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.

21 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2024-06-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and resident, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision required to keep the environment for Resident #273 as free from accidents as possible, causing Resident #273 to have multiple falls in which she sustained multiple injuries. This was true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for falls during the survey process. Resident Identifier: #273. Facility census: 69. Additionally, based on observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to keep the resident environment, over which it had control, was as free of accident hazards as possible, by leaving a potentially toxic substance on Resident #66's bedside table, making it accessible to other residents in the facility. This was a random opportunity for discovery. This has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifier:66. Facility census: 69. Findings included: a) Resident #273 Resident #273 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-02-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure meals were served at a palatable temperature at time of delivery. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a minimal number of residents residing in the long term care facility. Census: 69 Findings included:a) ObservationOn 02/10/26, a request was made of the Nursing Aides (NAs) on [NAME] wing to allow the State Agency (SA) to test the temperature of the last regular tray on the cart. The NA alerted the dietary manager (DM) to bring a new tray for the resident and a thermometer. The DM #84 and corporate dietary #104 tested the temperatures at 12:40 PM with the following results:-Hamburger = 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F)-Potatoes = 107.8 degrees F-Corn = 92.7 degrees F-Fruit = 54.7 degrees Fb) InterviewDuring an interview on 02/10/26 at 12:40 PM, the corporate dietary #104 stated temperatures at time of service should be greater than 120 degrees F for hot foods and less than 41 degrees F for cold food. Another interview with 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · 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 record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to review Resident #40's care plan related to activities. This failed practice was found to be true for one (1) of 16 resident care plans reviewed during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #40. Facility census: 69.Findings included:a) Record reviewRecord review, completed on 02/10/26, of the care plan for Resident #40 reads as follows: Resident receives three (3) one-to-one's (1:1's) weekly. Date Initiated: 12/12/25. Further record review of the 1:1 list provided by the Activity Director revealed Resident #40 was not on the list.b) InterviewsDuring an interview on 02/09/2026 at 2:01 PM, Resident #40 stated he does not go to Bingo or other activities but does enjoy playing dominoes. Resident stated he does not have anyone come to his room to offer in room activities.In an interview on 02/10/26 with the Activities Director (AD) at 2:39 PM, it was confirmed that the resident had no documented 1:1 visits.In an interview on 02/10/26 with the Administrator at 2:46 PM, it was…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
  Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on resident interview, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activity programming was based on Resident #40's person centered care plan and personal interests. The facility had no documentation to reflect Resident #40 received activities of interests. This failed practice was found true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of activities during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #40 Facility census: 69.Findings included:a) InterviewsDuring an interview on 02/09/2026 at 2:01 PM, Resident #40 stated he does not go to Bingo or other activities but does enjoy playing dominoes. Resident stated he does not have anyone come to his room to offer in room activities.In an interview on 02/10/26 with the Activities Director (AD) at 2:39 PM, it was confirmed that the resident had no documented 1:1 visits.In an interview on 02/10/26 with the Administrator at 2:46 PM, it was confirmed 1:1 visits were not documented as being completed by the activity staff.b) Record reviewRecord review, completed on 02/10/26, of the care…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  Procure 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 ensure foods and equipment were stored under sanitary conditions. This failed practice had the potential to contaminate food-contact surfaces and cause foodborne illness. It also had the potential to affect more than a minimal number of residents who receive nutrition through the kitchen. These were random opportunities of discovery during the follow up kitchen tour. Census: 69.a) ObservationDuring a kitchen tour on 02/10/26, there was buildup noted in the bottom of the walk-in refrigerator. This was verified by corporate dietary #104 at 9:03 AM.There was a storage bin full of lids that had a brown sticky substance along the bottom of the bin. This was verified by corporate dietary #104 at 9:00 AM.Wet nesting (the practice of stacking wet dishware that does not allow air drying and can create an environment that supports bacterial growth) was identified in metal bowls and in insulated serving bowls. There were also three (3) melted/damaged insulated bowls identified and discarded by Dietician #105. b) InterviewAn…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-06-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on resident interview, staff interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure hot food were served at a temperature of at least 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F). This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifiers: #21, #50, #66, and #51. Facility Census 69. Findings included: a) Resident #21 During the initial interview on 06/24/24 at 1:30 PM, Resident #21 stated, Hell no my food isn't hot. During an observation on 06/25/24 at 12:25 PM, the temperature of the lunch food at point of service was as follows: Ground chicken thigh: 115.5 degrees F. Spinach: 117 degrees F. Further observation showed that Resident #21 had refused the lunch tray and the lunch tray was tempt immediately after the last tray was delivered. The Corporate dietary manager confirmed that temperature at point of service should be at 120 degrees F. b) Resident #50 During the initial interview on 06/24/24 at 2:00 PM, Resident #50 states, The Food is cold, to get a hot cup of coffee around here would be a miracle. During an observation on 06/25/24 at…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-26 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately resolve a grievance. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for personal property. Resident identifier: #27. Facility census 59. Findings included: On 6/24/24 at 12:45 PM, Resident #27 reported that she had some clothing come up missing a couple of months ago and the facility told her family to replace the clothing and they would refund resident's family the money. She reported that the money had not yet been refunded, she can't remember if she had filed a grievance or complaint. On 06/24/24 at 3:44 PM, review of resident's grievance from 04/22/24 stated that resident had missing clothing. 8 (eight) items- green sweater, solid green shirt, denim pants, pjs, socks white, gray bra, solid red shirt, pink shirt. This grievance completed by Social Worker (SW) stated Have family replace missing items and reimburse family for money spent to replace items. On 06/25/24 at 2:25 PM, an interview with the Social Worker (SW) who reported that resident's family was reimbursed for 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-26 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  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 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSAR) for Resident #3, after being diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Resident #51's PASSAR was not updated after being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Unspecified Psychosis. This was true for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for PASSAR's during the survey process. Resident identifiers: #3, #51. Facility census: 69. Findings included: a) Resident #3 At approximately 12:30 PM on 06/25/2024, a review of the electronic health record of Resident #3 was conducted. During this review, it was revealed Resident #3 was diagnosed with major depressive disorder on 09/28/2022. However, the most recent PASSAR completed for Resident #3 was on 06/10/2022, and makes no mention of the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. At approximately 1:53 PM on 06/26/2024, an interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator concerning the PASSAR for Resident #3. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the diagnosis of major depressive…

  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 · Dcited before2024-06-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately develop care plans related to capacity and one on one supervision. This failed practice was found true for (2) two of 17 residents reviewed for care plans during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifiers: #50 and #273. Facility census: 69. Findings Included: a) Resident #50 A record review on 06/25/24 at 11:06 AM, of Resident #50's care plan revealed the following: Intervention revised on 03/06/24: The resident has a communication problem r/t vision deficit/lacks capacity to make medical decisions. Further record review revealed a capacity form completed on 01/05/24 that is marked as Resident #50 demonstrates capacity to make decisions. During an interview on 06/26/24 at 12:15 PM, The Director of Social Services (DSS) confirmed that Resident #50 does have capacity and the care plan was wrong. b) Resident #273 Resident #273 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a nondisplaced fracture of base of neck…

  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 · D2024-06-26 · tag F0661 — isolated
  Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete a discharge summary of Resident #72. This failed practice was found true for (1) one of (1) residents reviewed for unplanned discharge during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier #72. Facility census 69. Findings Include a) Resident #72 A record review on 06/26/24 at 12:54 PM, revealed that Resident #72 had an unplanned discharge from the facility. Further record review revealed that a discharge summary was not completed in its entirety. During an interview on 06/26/24 at 12:57 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, Her discharge was so confusing. It was planned in the fact that she was going home, but unplanned because we did not know when her son was coming to get her. The DON further stated, We do have a problem with our discharge process and we are working on it,

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-26 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. A multidose medication vial was not dated when opened. This was a random opportunity for discovery made during the medication storage task. Facility census: 69. Findings included: a) Medication Storage During investigation of the [NAME] and [NAME] hallways medication preparation room on 06/25/24 at 9:35 AM, a multidose vial of Tubersol tuberculin purified protein derivative was found to not have been dated when opened. Tuberculin purified protein derivative is given by injection to aid in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. According to the Tubersol package insert accompanying the vial and available on the Food and Drug Administration website, A vial of Tubersol which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded. Because the vial had not been dated when opened, it could not be determined when the vial should be…

  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

“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

$42,266 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $42,266 — penalty dated 2024-06-26

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to COMMUNICARE HEALTH — 110 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 25 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

14 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