Wyoming Healthcare Center
236 Warrior Way, New Richmond, WV 24867 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (304) 294-7586 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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 (F0600), cited Mar 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $268,733 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-27)
- about 33% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| 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 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.7% | 14.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 17.0% | 7.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.3% | 15.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 39.9% | 27.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.9% | 22.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.0% | 13.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.5% | 79.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.3% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.7% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
37.2% 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 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.4% 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 26 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% 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 | 37.2%CMS range 26.7–51.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.6%CMS range 7.9–18.9 | 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 | 65.4% | 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 | 57.7% | 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 | 57.7% | 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 | 93.3% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 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 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.4–16.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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 60 beds and averages 55.8 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.78 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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.
32 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2024-03-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — widespreadProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical, sexual, and verbal abuse. Multiple incidents took place in which Resident #213 inappropriately touched and verbally and physically assaulted other residents. The facility failed to properly document, investigate, or report these incidents of abuse. The facility was unable to identify any victims of the abuse due to the failure to properly document and investigate each incident of abuse. Resident identifier: 213. Facility census: 55. The state agency (SA) determined these failures caused the victims of Resident #213's abuse to suffer physical and psychosocial harm. Because the victims were unable to be identified, the reasonable person standard was applied. Due to the facility's failure to identify the victims and properly investigate the abuse, proper services were unable to be provided to the victims after an instance of abuse, causing further psychosocial harm. Not only did these failures…
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 before2025-11-19 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for Residents #5, #19, and #39, and failed to include required 1:1 visit interventions in the care plan for Resident #23, this was found true for four (4) of 17 care plans reviewed during the Long Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifiers: #5, #19, #39 and #23 Facility Census: 56Findings include:a) Residents #5, #19, #39During record review on 11/18/25 of residents #5, #19, #39 person centered care plan revealed all three (3) residents had the same Focus statement which read as follows; Resident is self-directed for activities in and out of the room daily, and Resident is dependent on staff for activities, cognitive stimulation or social interaction.On 11/19/25 at approximately 2:00 pm an interview with the Activity Director revealed not all residents were independent and dependent on activities and stated I can edit these and get them fixed now, when I initiate the care plan this comes up, I'll get these fixed today. confirming the care plans were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #57's Minimum Data Set was accurate in the area of dental status. This was true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. Resident Identifier: 57. Facility Census: 56. Findings include: Resident number 57. On 11/18/2025 at 10:00 a.m., this surveyor observed resident #57 was missing front tooth of upper denture plate. On 11/19/2025 at 11:00 a.m., this surveyor completed a record review for Resident #57. The review revealed that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] was inaccurate in Section L. Specifically, Section L indicated that the resident's dentures were not broken, which was inconsistent with the resident's actual condition.On 11/19/2025 at 11:30 a.m., the DON #49 supplied copy of MDS confirming the MDS was incorrect.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 upon record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate diagnoses on the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) in coordination with the Medical Diagnostic Screening (MDS). This was found to be true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed during the annual survey process. Resident identifier: #8.Facility census: 56 Findings included: (A) Medical Record Review Resident #8 was first admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the following diagnoses related to mental illness/neurological diseases : DEPRESSION, UNSPECIFIED 05/02/2025 Present on AdmissionSCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER, UNSPECIFIED 06/08/22 Present on AdmissionPARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER 06/08/2022 Present on AdmissionBIPOLAR DISORDER, CURRENT EPISODE MIXED, SEVERE, WITHOUT PSYCHOTIC FEATURES 06/08/2022 Present on AdmissionVASCULAR DEMENTIA, UNSPECIFIED SEVERITY, WITHOUT BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE, PSYCHOTIC DISTURBANCE, MOOD DISTURBANCE, AND ANXIETY 06/08/2022 Present on AdmissionPARKINSON'S DISEASE WITH DYSKINESIA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-19 · 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 prior after completion of the quarterly assessment as required. At the time of the survey, the care plan for Resident #4 had a target date of 10/24/25 and had not been revised when the quarterly assessment was completed in early October 2025. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications during the long term care survey process. Resident Identifier: #4. Facility Census: 56Findings include:A review of Resident #4's medical record revealed a comprehensive care plan with 10/24/25 as the target date for all goals contained on the care plan. Further review showed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment had been completed in early October 2025. The care plan had not been reviewed upon completion of this assessment and the target dates had not been updated. no evidence that the care plan had been reviewed or updated on or after 10/24/2025. An interview conducted on 11/18/25 at 1:00 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON} #49…
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 · D2025-11-19 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that necessary hearing and/or vision aides and services were provided and maintained in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of hearing and vision. Resident #55 was never seen by the audiologist or optometrist in regards to hearing and vision impairments. The resident had a signed consent on file for the services but the facility failed to follow through and did not ensure the resident was evaluated for new glasses and hearing aides. Resident Identifier: #55. Facility Census: 56. Findings include:On 11/17/25 at 10:30 a.m., Resident #55 was observed without their hearing device. The resident reported they were awaiting new hearing aids and new glasses.A review of the resident's record on 11/19/25 at 1:00 p.m. indicated that the admission minimum data set (MDS) documented the resident as having both hearing and vision impairments.On 11/19/25 at 2:30 p.m., an interview with the facility administrator revealed the facility could…
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 · D2025-11-19 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 ensure the Medical Director responded to the Pharmacist's irregularities reported on the medication regimen review (MRR). This was found to be true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. Resident identifier: #6. Facility census: 56Findings included: (A) Medical Record Review Resident #6 had the following diagnoses in the medical record related to mental illness/neurological diseases: UNSPECIFIED DEMENTIA, UNSPECIFIED SEVERITY, WITHOUT BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE, PSYCHOTIC DISTURBANCE, MOOD DISTURBANCE, AND ANXIETY 05/07/2025 During StayANXIETY DISORDER, UNSPECIFIED 04/28/2024 During StayMAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, MILD 04/23/2024 Present on admission The resident had the following medication orders: hydrOXYzine HCl Oral Tablet 25 MG (Hydroxyzine HCl)Give 25 mg by mouth two times a day for anxietyPharmacy Active 6/23/2025 Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet 100 MG (Sertraline HCl)Give 100 mg by mouth one time a day for depressionPharmacy Active 6/23/2025 traZODone HCl Oral…
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 · F2024-03-27 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to employ qualified dietary staff by failing to have each member of the dietary staff obtain food handlers cards before working in the dietary department. This has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 55. Findings include: A) Culinary Aide (CA) #62 At approximately 9:00 AM on 03/27/24, an interview was conducted with the Culinary Director (CD). The CD provided a list of employees with food handlers cards. Upon review, it was determined that CA #62 did not have a food handlers card and had been employed in dietary since 01/02/24. The CD stated They just work weekends and I never see them, so it has been hard to get them to get the food handlers card. According to [NAME] Virginia code §16-2-16, all counties in [NAME] Virginia must require food safety certificates for food employees.
- Potential for harm · F2024-03-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 store food in a safe and sanitary manner and maintain sanitary equipment. This had the ability to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Temperature logs At approximately 11:07 AM on 03/25/24, during a tour of the kitchen, it was discovered that the breakfast temperature logs were incomplete. [NAME] #59 stated the temperature logs were not done due to new employee training. The Culinary Director (CD) confirmed the temperature logs were not done. CD stated the employee must have put the temperature logs on a separate sheet of paper somewhere to show the trainee how to fill out the logs, and just forgot to fill out the logs. b) Expired beans At approximately 11:15 AM on 03/25/24, during a tour of the kitchen, a container of pinto beans was discovered in the reach-in refrigerator. The beans were dated 03/16/22-03/22/24. The CD acknowledged the expired beans and stated, I don ' t know why those are still in there but I will throw those away right now. c) Microwave 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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-03-27 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to have the appropriate members of the quality assessment and assurance committee attend the quarterly meetings. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing at the facility. Facility census: 55. Findings included: Record Review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Sign in Sheet showed the facility's Medical Director did not attend the second quarter meeting for 2023. On 03/27/24 at 3:55 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the medical director was not in attendance at the second quarter meeting in 2023
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a clean homelike environment in the dining room. This was found during the observation of the lunch meal on 03/25/24 and has the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents. Facility Census: 55. Findings included: a) During an observation of the noon time meal on 03/25/24 it was noted the ceiling around the vent in the dining room was dirty. On 03/26/24 at 3:00 PM the Director of Plant Maintenance confirmed the ceiling around the vent needed to be cleaned. On 03/27/24 during an observation of the lunch meal the ceiling around the vent in the dining room was still dirty and had not been cleaned.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 investigate allegations of abuse from Resident #213 to other residents in the facility. This was true for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for allegations of abuse. This has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: 213. Facility census: 55. Findings include: a) Resident #214 Progress Notes At approximately 3:00 PM on 03/25/24, a record review for Resident #213 was conducted as part of the sample selection process. During this process, progress notes were reviewed, which indicated multiple incidents of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse directed at other residents in the facility, by Resident #213. These progress notes were cross referenced with the facility's incident and reportables logs, revealing none of these incidents were investigated or reported. Progress notes of the incidents are as follows: On 02/13/24 at 6:23 PM Resident #213 touched a female resident inappropriately. On 02/19/24 at 11:54 AM, Resident #213 rubbed a female resident's arm and stated, Tell me you love…
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 before2024-03-27 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a care plan for 1:1 visits, a diagnosis for Schizoaffective Disorder, Bed Rails, Wander Guard, Trauma and Dementia diagnosis, Fall Interventions, and Tube Feeding. This was true for eight (8) of 16 sampled residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. Resident identifiers: 36, 33, 7, 25, 48, 20, 213, and 31 Facility census: 55 Findings include: a) Resident #36 On 03/26/24 at 10:15 AM the Activity Director Provided a 1:1 list stating Resident #36 was to have 1:1 visits daily. A record review on 03/26/24 at 11:00 AM of Resident #36's care plan revealed Resident #36 was not care planned to receive daily 1:1 visits. On 03/26/24 at 11:36 AM during a staff interview with the Administrator, it was confirmed the care plan did not include Resident #36's 1:1 visits with activities. b) Resident # 33 On 03/26/24 at 10:15 AM the Activity Director Provided a 1:1 list stating Resident #33 was to have 1:1 visits daily. A record review on 03/26/24 at 11:00 AM of Resident #33's care plan…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 residents were treated in a dignified manner. Resident #162 was administered medication in the dining room on two (2) occasions and Resident #36 was taken to Bingo and the day lounge to watch television in a shirt soiled with tube feeding. These were random opportunities for discovery. Resident identifiers: #36 and #162. Facility Census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #36 On 03/27/24 during a medication administration observation at approximately 1:30 PM, Resident #36's shirt became soiled with tube feeding when some of the feeding spilt from the syringe used during the feeding. Resident #36's shirt was not changed, and she was taken to the dining room to play Bingo. At 3:05 PM on 03/28/24 Resident #36 was observed sitting in the lounge area with other residents watching a movie. She was still wearing the soiled shirt. Registered Nurse #85 observed the resident with the surveyor at 3:05 PM on 03/27/24 and confirmed her shirt needed to be changed. b) Resident #162 On 03/27/24 at 11:11 am, Resident #162…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-27 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 identify a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder on a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS). This was a random opportunity for discovery and was true for Resident #20. Resident identifier: #20. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #20 On 03/27/24 at 10:03 AM a record review on Resident #20 found the Pharmacy recommendations on 01/05/24. The FNP (Family Nurse Practitioner) had a note stating to add medical diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder to the resident's medical record. Further record review on 03/27/24 showed bipolar disorder on Resident #20's medical diagnosis, however, it did not show a medical diagnosis for schizoaffective disorder. A review of the quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/08/24 revealed Resident #20 had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder . During an interview on 03/27/24 at 11:00 AM a staff interview with the Corporate Nurse #85, Regional Director #85 and Administrator all confirmed the Diagnosis for Schizoaffective Disorder was not on…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate 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 (PASRR) for Resident #6, after the resident was diagnosed with a major mental disorder after admission to the facility. This was true for one (1) of 16 residents reviewed during the survey process. Resident identifier: #6. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #6 At approximately 2:30 PM on 03/25/24, a record review was conducted for Resident #6. During the Record review, the PASRR for Resident #6 was reviewed. The PASARR, dated 08/19/10, had None marked under the current diagnosis tab of the MI/MR (Mental Illness/Mental Retardation) assessment portion. Upon further review, Resident #6 was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 2017 and a new PASARR was not completed. At approximately 1:41 PM on 03/27/24, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). During this interview, the DON acknowledged there was no diagnosis on the PASRR for major depressive disorder. The DON also acknowledged Resident #6 had been diagnosed with major…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to add a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder for one (1) of (16) residents reviewed for the care area of pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) this failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents in facility. Resident identifier: #20. Facility census: 55. Findings include: A review of Resident #20's medical record on 03/27/24 found the resident received a diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder prior to admission. Further Record review of Resident #20's medical record on 03/27/24 of the pre-admission screening and resident review ( PASARR) found the PASARR did not contain a diagnosis of schizoaffective Disorder. An interview on 03/27/24 at 10:10 AM, with Regional Director #86 and Corporate Nurse #85 confirmed the PASARR for Resident #20 did not contain a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-27 · 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, observation and staff interview the facility failed to revise Resident #36's care plan when the use of a vest for positioning was discontinued. This was true for one (1) of 16 sampled residents. Resident Identifier: #36. Facility Census: 55. Findings include: a) Resident #36 A record review of Resident #36's care plan on 03/26/24 found the following intervention related to Activities of Daily Living (ADL) performance, Up in high back tilt wheelchair with pommel cushion and vest for positioning. An observation of Resident #36 on 03/25/24 and 03/27/24 found the resident was up in the wheelchair but was not wearing a vest as directed in her care plan. An interview with Nurse Aide #64 at 12:58 PM on 03/27/24 confirmed the resident did not have a vest in place. Nurse Aide #64 stated, She use to have one but we have not used that with her for sometime now. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/27/24 at approximately 2:00 PM found the resident no longer used the vest. She indicated, it had messed up so they switched it to the seat belt. She agreed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-27 · 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 and resident interview, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments after a fall for Resident #213 and #31, failed to notify the physician of hyperglycemia results for Resident #8, and to administer medication per physician's order for Resident #49. This was true for four (4) out of four (4) residents reviewed for quality of care during the survey process. Resident identifiers: #213, #31, #8, #49. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #213 At approximately 10:00 AM on 03/27/24, a record review was conducted for Resident #213 concerning falls at the facility. Upon review, it was determined neurochecks were incomplete for Resident #213 following multiple falls. For a fall at 5:15 PM on 10/20/23, the daily fourth check was not completed. For a fall at 6:35 PM on 12/26/23, the daily second and daily third checks were not completed. The daily fourth check was completed on 03/15/24. For a fall at 7:00 PM on 02/14/24, the fourth one-hour check was documented taking place at 02/14/24 at midnight. The neuro check should have taken…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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, family interview, staff interview and record review the facility failed to provide toenail care to Resident #29. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #29. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #29 On 03/25/24 at 12:30 PM Resident #29's husband stated he would like to get her toenails cut. They [facility staff] told him she wasn't eligible, and no one has ever come back to do anything else about it. The resident's toenails on both feet were observed to be thick, yellow in color and curled over top the ends of the toes on both feet. Record review showed no grievance or concerns for toenail care. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 03/26/24 at 2:02 PM electronic health records Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #19 stated they have to sign up for [name of contracted services company] then if they are eligible, they can get the services. If they are not…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident environment over which it had control was as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident #31 did not have his fall interventions in place. The facility to failed to implement fall interventions for Resident #213 regarding his risk for elopement. This was true for two (2) of the 16 sampled residents. Resident identifiers: #31 and #213. Facility Census: 55. Findings Include: a) Resident #31 A review of Resident #31's medical record on 03/26/24 found a fall intervention of bed bolsters to the bed. An observation with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Registered Nurse #85 on 03/26/24 at 10:18 AM confirmed Resident #31's bed bolsters were not in place as directed by his care plan. b) Resident #213 At approximately 3:30 PM on 03/25/24, a review of the care plan for Resident #213 was conducted. During the review, it was noted Resident #213 was care planned to have a wanderguard device on their leg and wheelchair due to wandering behaviors and a history of elopement. At approximately 10:30 AM on…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 ensure a resident who is fed by enteral means receives the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of the enteral feeding tube unless unavoidable. Resident Identifier: Resident #36. Facility Census: 55. Findings Include: a) Resident #36 An observation of medication administration for Resident #36 began on 03/27/24 beginning at 1:10 PM found Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN ) #35 was preparing medication for Resident #36. LPN #35 stated, I am giving medication to (Name of Resident #36) this is her noon and 2:00 PM medications. LPN #35 was asked to read each medication as she was pulling them from the medication cart. LPN #35 indicated she was giving the following medication: 1. Isosource 1.5 2. Haldol Tablet five (5) milligrams 3. Midodrine 10 milligrams 4. Norco 5-325 milligrams 5. Baclofen 10 milligrams LPN #35 crushed the Haldol, Midodrine, Norco, and baclofen all together. She stated, I have to crush them because they are administered in her feeding tube. LPN #35 took Resident #36 to…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to properly assess Resident #213 for the use of bed rails. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for bed rails during the long term care survey process. Resident identifier: 213. Facility census: 55. Findings include: A) Resident #213 At approximately 09:30 AM on 03/26/24, an observation of bed rails on Resident #213 ' s bed was made while investigating accident hazards. At approximately 10:00 AM on 03/26/24, a review of the care plan for Resident #213 was conducted. During the review, it was noted that Resident #213 was not care planned to have bed rails on their bed. At approximately 10:15 AM on 03/26/24, a bed evaluation provided by Corporate RN (CRN) #85 stated the resident had interest in bed rails. However, there was no bed rail safety evaluation completed for the resident. CRN #85 confirmed there was no bed rail safety evaluation done on Resident #213. CRN #85 stated There ' s not a bed rail safety evaluation here for that resident. I don ' t even know what a bed rail safety evaluation is.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-27 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, staff interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #35 had the appropriate nurse competencies to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of the enteral feeding tube unless unavoidable. LPN #35 did not administer medications and or feedings to Resident #36 via the enteral tube in a correct manner. The facility was unable to show LPN #35's competencies and skills regarding feeding tube care was reviewed upon her hire to the facility in January of 2024. Resident identifier: #36. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #36 An observation of medication administration for Resident #36 began on 03/27/24 beginning at 1:10 PM found Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN ) #35 was preparing medication for Resident #36. LPN #35 stated, I am giving medication to (Name of Resident #36) this is her noon and 2:00 PM medications. LPN #35 was asked to read each medication as she was pulling them from the medication cart. LPN #35 indicated she was giving…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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 notify the physician of a change in baseline behaviors immediately, for a resident with dementia. This was true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for dementia care during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #213. Facility census: 55. Findings include: At approximately 3:30 PM on 03/25/24, a record review was conducted for Resident #213. It was noted Resident #213 had the following diagnosis: Dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbances. On 03/22/24, Resident #213 returned from a local behavioral health facility for behaviors. Upon review of behavioral monitoring task sheets, it was determined the resident had worsening behaviors and the physician was not notified until surveyor intervention for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation, on 03/25/24. The behaviors noted from the task sheets were: 03/23/24 at 11:18 AM-Kicking others, physically aggressive toward others, cursing at others, express frustration/anger at others, screaming…
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 · D2024-03-27 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 ensure the facility's medication error rate was five (5) percent or less. The facility's medication error rate was 16.67 percent. Resident identifier: Resident #36. Facility census: 55. Findings include: a) Resident #36 An observation of medication administration for Resident #36 began on 03/27/24 at 1:10 PM. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN ) #35 was preparing medication for Resident #36. LPN #35 stated, I am giving medication to (Name of Resident #36) this is her noon and 2:00 PM medication. LPN #35 was asked to read each medication as she was pulling them from the medication cart. LPN #35 indicated she was giving the following medication: 1. Isosource 1.5 2. Haldol Tablet five (5) milligrams 3. Midodrine 10 milligrams 4. Norco 5-325 milligrams 5. Baclofen 10 milligrams LPN #35 crushed the Haldol, Midodrine, Norco, and baclofen all together. She stated, I have to crush them because they are administered in her feeding tube. LPN #35 took Resident #36 to her room and began the medication administration 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-27 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate and complete record for two (2) of 16 residents reviewed during the survey process. Residents #19 and #26 did not have an accurate and complete record. Resident #19's record had an incomplete transfer form. Resident #26's record was incomplete in Physician's Scope of Orders for Treatment (POST) form. Resident Identifiers: #19 and #26 . Facility Census: 55. Findings Include: a) Resident #19 On 03/26/24 at 11:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #26. The review found the resident was transferred to an acute care facility on 03/15/24. However, the transfer form was reviewed, and the date was listed as 01/28/24. On 03/26/24 at 11:30 AM, the Administrator and the Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #85 were notified and confirmed the transfer date on the transfer form was incorrect. b) Resident #26 On 03/26/24 at 10:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #26. The review found the Physician's Scope of Orders for Treatment (POST) form was not complete. The POST form was signed by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-11 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to offer an eligible resident the pneumococcal immunization for one (1) out of five (5) residents reviewed for immunizations. Resident identifier: #39. Facility census 57. Findings included: a) Resident #39 A review of the medical chart found Resident #39 last received a Pneumovax 23 on 06/14/17 which is more than five (5) years and the Resident is eligible for the Prevnar 20. On 09/11/23 at 1:47 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility failed to offer Resident #39 the Prevnar 20 vaccine.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-28 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the ombudsman was notified of all residents' transfers to the hospital. This was true for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for the care area of hospitlizations. Resident indentifier: #35. Facility census: 53. Findings included: a) Resident #35 Review of Resident #35's medical records showed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to decreased level of consciousness. During an interview on 09/27/22 at 2:02 PM, the Administrator stated a list of the facility's discharges for August 2022 had been sent to the ombudsman on 08/30/22 but Resident #35 was not on this list. The Administrator stated she corrected this today. .
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-09-28 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately revise the comprehensive care plan for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of pressure ulcers. Resident identifier: #44. Facility census: 53. Findings included: a) Resident #44 Review of Resident #44's physician's orders showed an order written on 09/21/22 to cleanse the pressure ulcer to left outer ankle with wound cleanser, pat dry, and apply sure prep. On 09/27/22 at 10:34 AM, Registered Nurse #38 was observed performing the treatment to Resident #44's left outer ankle pressure ulcer. RN #38 stated Resident #44 had other pressure ulcers that healed. Review of Resident #44's comprehensive care plan showed the following focus, [Resident's name has pressure area to right outer ankle. Pressure area to left ankle has resolved. This focus was updated on 09/21/22. During an interview on 09/28/22 at 8:55 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #44's care plan was incorrect, and the resident had a current left ankle pressure ulcer and resolved right ankle pressure ulcer. .
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-09-28 · 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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to follow physician's orders for medication parameters and failed to perform neurological assessments according to professional standards of practice. This had the potential to affect one (1) of 15 residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #35. Facility census: 53. Findings included: a) Resident #35 1) Medication parameters Review of Resident #35's physician's orders showed an order written on 02/21/22 for the medication atenolol, 25 mg, to be given twice a day for hypertension. The physician's order stated to hold the medication for a pulse rate less than 60. Review of Resident #35's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed Atenolol had been administered on 09/10/22 at 9:00 AM when the resident's pulse was documented as 56. During an interview on 09/27/22 at 11:19 AM, the Administrator confirmed Resident #35 had been administered Atenolol on 09/10/22…
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 · D2022-09-28 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 maintain accurate documentation for administration and dispensing of pain medication for Resident #46 and #55. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers: #46, and #55. Facility census: 53. Findings included: a) Resident #46 Review of Resident #46's orders indicated an order for pain medication, Percocet Tablet 5-325 mg give one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. Start date of 05/02/22. Record review of the residents Medication Administration Record (MAR) compared to the individual resident's-controlled substance record (used to sign controlled substances out of medication cart) indicated the following discrepancies in documentation for Percocet Tablet 5-325 mg administered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #64 in September 2022: 09/21/22 - no tablets were signed out of inventory. One (1) tablet was documented as administered at on the MAR at 9:53 PM. 09/22/22 - One (1) tablet was signed out of inventory at 9:53 PM and one (1) tablet signed out at 6:00 AM, and one…
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
$268,733 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $268,733 — penalty dated 2024-03-27
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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 109 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 109; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZENITH HOLDINGS OP CO., LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/14/2023 |
| C.R. STOLTZ FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| C.R. STOLTZ IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| I. ROSEDALE FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| I. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| MARANTZ WV HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| R.S. WILHEIM IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| RONALD S WILHEIM 2012 SPOUSAL TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| ROSEDALE FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| RRW, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| S.L. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| WILHEIM FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| ZENITH HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| ROMEO, DOMINIC | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| STOLTZ, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| WILHEIM, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| WARRIOR MGT CO., LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| FOLTZ, SHERRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| GROVES, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| SAVAL, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| ODENTHAL, RICHARD | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/22/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 39 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
15 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 86% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 33% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WV
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the West Virginia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 515164. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-19, 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.