Rainelle Healthcare Center

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.

42.3% 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 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 56.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 25 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 54.3 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.04 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2023-01-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Deficiency Text Not Available

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-05-21 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — pattern
  Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Reference complaint# 2667227 Based on Record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety and security of resident property; specifically medication. This was discovered during the normal Long Term Survey Process and has the ability to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident Identifiers #1, 15, 39, 56, 64, 65. Census 55.Based on Record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety and security of resident property; specifically, medication. This was discovered during the normal Long Term Survey Process and had the ability to affect more than a limited number of residents. This citation was issued at past noncompliance. Resident identifier: #64. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #64 On 10/21/25 it was discovered that LPN #100 was not giving out as needed (PRN) medications to the residents assigned to them. There were multiple accounts of the medications being marked as given on the Medication administration Record (MAR), but when residents were asked about their PRN medication need or use, they stated…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  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

  Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards including, provide bed side floor mat for a resident that was in a care plan and ordered by physician and non-locking doors to general shower room and linen room. This was true for Resident #23 and has the potential affect a larger number of residents. Resident identifier: #23. Facility census: 55. Findings included: a) Resident #23 Review of Resident #23's physician orders on 05/19/26 revealed the following: Fall mat to patient's left side. Order date: 04/23/26. Review of the care plan on pages 19 and 20 revealed: Focus -Resident is at risk for falls related to, but not limited to history of falls, Parkinson's, Tremor etc Interventions- include fall mat to patients left side of bed when in bed. Date initiated 02/02/26 On 05/20/26 at 4:02 PM Resident #23 was observed lying in bed with eyes closed, call light within reach, bilateral bed bolsters but the fall mat was absent from the left side. On 05/20/26 at 4:04 PM the administrator was interviewed…

  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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR 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 on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure each resident in a nursing facility is screened for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) prior to admission by not ensuring Pre-admission screening and resident review (PASSR) reflected the medical diagnosis prior to admission to facility and updated the PASSR. This was found true for one (1) of four (4) reviewed during the Long Term Care Survey process. Resident identifier: #17. Facility census: 55. Findings Include: a) Resident #17 During record review completed on 05/20/26 at 11:00 Am found resident # 17 has a diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent unspecified on 11/17/23 resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further record review revealed the most recent Pre-admission screening and Resident Review (PASSR) created on 04/20/26 did not have the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent unspecified. An interview with the facility's administrator was completed on 05/20/26 at 1:00 PM and…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview and and record review, the Facility failed to implement a resident's care plan by failing to use a floor mat for Resident #23 with a a history of falls. Resident identifier: #23. Facility Census 55. a) Resident #23 A review of Resident #23's physician orders on 05/19/26 revealed the following: Fall mat to patients left side. Order date 04/23/26. A review of the care plan on pages 19 and 20 revealed: Focus -Resident is at risk for falls related but not limited to history of falls, Parkinson's, Tremor etc Interventions- include fall mat to patients left side of bed when in bed. Date initiated 02/02/26. On 05/20/26 at 4:02 PM Resident #23 was observed lying in bed with eyes closed, bulb call light in reach, bilateral bed bolsters but absence of fall mat to left side. On 05/20/26 at 4:04 PM interview with administrator who observed Resident #23, and acknowledged the mat was not in place. At 4:10 PM the Administrator returned and reported the floor mat was behind the bed but had since been put into place.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on interview, record review and observation the facility failed to ensure resident #10 was provided sunscreen prior to an outside activity. Resident identifier #10. Facility Census: 55. Findings Include: a) Resident #10 After observation of Resident #10 it was evident that the resident had a sunburn. Resident #10 stated that she had been outside for an activity and was not offered sunscreen prior to going outside, therefore Resident #10 suffered a sunburn. Resident #10 sunburn resulted in an order for aloe vera to be applied to affected areas. This deficient practice was verified by the Administrator on 5/20/26 at 2:39 PM.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0576 — isolated
  Ensure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on resident interview, staff interview and record review the facility failed to protect the resident's rights to communicate with individuals confidentially by opening Resident #15's package before giving it to her. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier #15. Facility Census 52. Findings include: a) Resident #15 During an interview, on 12/11/24 at 9:40 AM, Resident #15 stated, Yesterday I got a package Resident #15 then showed me the package. It was a box that she had received through mail delivery services. Resident #15 further stated, I don't like them opening my stuff without me. A record review on 12/11/24 at 10:02 AM, of Resident #15's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed that Resident #15, had a BIMS score of (9) nine. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:13 AM, The Activity Director (AD) stated, I opened it and put it in there, because she is on a special diet, and she sometimes gets hard candy so I wanted to make sure she didn't get that.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · 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

  Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan in the area of falls. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of six (6) residents investigated for the care area of falls. Resident identifier: #12. Facility census: 52. Findings included: a) Resident #12 Review of Resident #12's comprehensive care plan showed a focus relating to potential injury from falls was initiated on 04/05/17. The following intervention was initiated on 04/07/23, Staff to ensure clothes fit properly when dressing resident. If elastic is worn out in pants notify nurse and use a different pair. Review of Resident #12's medical records showed the resident experienced a fall on 11/30/24. A nursing note written on 11/30/2024 at 7:47 PM stated, Resident was observed to have hipsters in place, only one shoe was in place (right shoe.) Resident did not have properly fitting pajama pants as they were observed to have no elastic in the waistband. Pants were observed to be around her ankles and possibly the cause of this fall. New fall…

  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 before2024-12-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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. Neurological checks were not performed according to professional standards of practice after an unwitnessed fall. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for the care area of falls. Resident identifier: #12. Facility census: 52. Findings included: a) Resident #12 The facility's policy and standard procedure titled Neurological Checks, no implementation date given, stated neurological checks would be performed for falls with unknown head injury as follows: - Every 15 minutes for four (4) times - Every 60 minutes for four (4) times - Every four (4) hours for four (4) times - Daily for four (4) times Review of Resident #12's medical records showed the resident had an unwitnessed fall with a head laceration on 11/13/24. The resident was evaluated in the emergency room where the head laceration was sutured. A computed tomography showed no abnormalities. Neurological…

  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 before2024-12-12 · 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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment over which it had control was as free from accident hazards as possible. This deficient practice affected one (1) of six (6) residents investigated for the care area of falls. Resident #12 experienced actual harm from the fall because she experienced pain after the fall and required evaluation in the emergency room. X-ray examination showed an abnormality of the hip and further evaluation was recommended. However, the resident experienced another fall before further imaging could be obtained. After the second fall, the resident was found to have a hip fracture, requiring surgical intervention. Resident identifier: #12. Facility census: 52. Findings included: a) Resident #12 Review of Resident #12's comprehensive care plan showed a focus relating to potential for injury from falls was initiated on 04/05/2017. The focus stated, Potential for injury from falls r/t [related to] weakness, difficulty walking, hx…

  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 before2024-12-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard 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 ensure medical records were complete and accurate regarding fall risk evaluations for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for the care area of falls. Resident identifier: #54. Facility census: 52. Findings included: a) Resident #54 Review of Resident #54's medical records showed the resident had been admitted to the facility after a falling at home and fracturing her hip. A Fall Risk Observation Tool assessment was performed on 07/19/24 and documented the resident required minimum transfer assistance with gait belt. The assessment also documented the resident had a balance problem while walking and was unable to lift her head. The assessment also documented the resident had a fall history, currently took one (1) or two (2) medications that could contribute to a fall, and had one (1) or two (2) medical conditions that could contribute to falls. A Fall Risk Observation Tool assessment was repeated on 07/31/24 and documented the resident required minimum transfer assistance with gait belt. The assessment also…

  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

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to 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 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.

1 organizational owner 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 82% 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 $825K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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