Braxton 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.

36.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 29 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 65 beds and averages 62.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.09 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as 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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — pattern
  Honor 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 promote a dignified dining experience. These were random opportunities for discovery. Resident identifiers: #1, #3, #6, #8, #9, #14, #20, #24, #26, #38, #61 and #62. Facility Census: #65 Findings Include a) Resident #8 and #62 On 04/21/25 beginning at 11:15 AM during observation of the noon meal in the dining room it was observed that staff were not distributing meals to all residents seated together at an individual table. Resident #8 and #62 were sitting together at a table in the dining room. Resident #62 was served their meal at 11:25 AM. Resident #8 did not received a meal. Staff continued serving meals at various tables throughout the dining room. At 11:50 AM Resident #8 left the dining room. At 11:58 AM it was confirmed with Licensed Practical Nurse #82 that Resident #8 had left without a meal. b) Resident #6, #26 and #61 On 04/21/25 beginning at 11:15 AM during observation of the noon meal in the dining room it was observed that staff were not distributing meals to all residents seated together at an individual…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-23 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based upon record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete SNF ABN, Form CMS-10055 and send to the resident or resident's representative in a timely manner. This was true for 1 (one) of 3 (three) residents reviewed during the annual survey process. Resident identifier: #20. Facility census: 65 Findings included: a) Resident #20 Upon entering the survey on 04/21/25, the facility completed the Beneficiary Notices of residents discharged within the last six months form. From this, three(3) residents were selected to review for required notifications. Resident #20, who was discharged on 03/12/25, but remained in the facility. SNF-ABN Form was not completed until the surveyor requested the SNF Beneficiary Notification Review form be completed during the annual survey process. Notice was not provided to the resident or resident's representative until 04/21/25. On 04/23/25, at approximately 1:35 PM, in discussion with the NHA, NHA stated the facility had discovered this failure during, an audit of ABNs.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-23 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based upon record review and staff interview, the Facility failed to ensure preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) was updated and completed with new diagnoses of Dementia (Non-Alzheimer's) and Alzheimer's . This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed. Resident identifier: #38. Facility censes: 65. Findings included: a) Resident #38 The resident's PASARR was initially completed on 10/07/24 by the facility. In Section III, MI/MR Assessment, the current diagnoses was marked for major depression. No other selections were marked in this section. The Resident had current diagnoses of: Major Depressive Disorder Anxiety Disorder Vascular Dementia with mood disturbance The last MDS Assessment was completed on 04/18/25. A review of Section I, Active Diagnoses documented: Alzheimer's Disease Non-Alzheimer's Dementia Anxiety Disorder Depression (other than Bi-polar) The PASARR should have been updated when the diagnoses of dementia and Alzheimer's were added for the resident. The resident's record was reviewed with the NHA on 04/23/25 at approximately 12:10 PM. When…

  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 before2025-04-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #24 and #53's care plans included sensory and one (1) on one (1) activities, even though the residents were receiving them. This was true for two (2) of 21 resident care plans reviewed during the survey process. Resident identifiers: #24, #53. Facility census: 65. Findings include: a) Resident #24 During review of Resident #24's activity participation records on 04/22/25, it was noted during the last 30 days, the resident had received one (1) on one (1) activities six (6) times during this period. The resident received one (1) on one (1) activities for the following days: -03/27/25 -03/28/25 -04/09/25 -04/12/25 -04/16/25 -04/18/25 During review of the same activities records, it was noted the resident received sensory activities 12 times. Resident #24 received sensory activities on the following days: -03/26/25 -03/30/25 -03/31/25 -04/01/25 -04/07/25 -04/08/25 -04/10/25 -04/11/25 -04/14/25 -04/20/25 -04/21/25 -04/22/25 During…

  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 · D2025-04-23 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately document the completion of behavior monitoring for Resident #18. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the survey process. Resident identifier: 18. Facility census: 65. Findings include: A) Resident #18 During a review of Resident #18's behavior monitoring record for the last 90 days, on 04/22/25, it was determined no behavior monitoring was conducted on March 29th, 2025 on day shift, April 8th, 2025 on day shift, and April 14th, 2025 on day shift. On 4/23/2025 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed the behavior monitoring was missing. However, the DON was able to supply CNA documentation with behavior monitoring taking place on the aforementioned days. The DON stated It's expected the nurses will complete their documentation appropriately when referring to the missing dates on the Behavior Monitoring record.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-07-12 · tag F0623 — pattern
  Provide 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a resident's representative was provided a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge when a resident was discharged from the facility. This was true for five (5) of five (5) residents reviewed for hospitalizations in the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #1, #39, #48, #23, and #52. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #1 A medical record review completed on 07/11/23 at 8:56 AM, identified the following details: -Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on 4/26/23. -There was no evidence of a Notice of Transfer/Discharge being provided to resident and/or resident's representative. During an interview on 07/11/23 at 12:02 PM, the Administrator reported the facility had no evidence a Notice of Transfer/Discharge had been issued. The Administrator went on to explain the notice had been part of the old form and the facility had not identified the fact that it did not carry over to the new form…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-07-12 · tag F0625 — pattern
  Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
  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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence residents and/or resident representatives were provided written Bed Hold Notice when transferred from the facility to the hospital. Additionally, the facility had no evidence a written notice of bed hold was reviewed with residents / resident representatives upon admission. This was true for five (5) of five (5) residents reviewed for hospitalizations in the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #1, #39, #48, #23, and #52. Facility census: 54. Findings Included: a) Resident #1 A medical record review completed on 07/11/23 at 8:56 AM, identified the following details: -Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on 4/26/23. -There was no evidence of a written bed hold notice being provided to resident and/or resident's representative. -Additionally, there was no evidence the bed hold policy had been discussed and shared with resident and/or resident's representative upon admission to the facility. During…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-07-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored under proper temperatures, in accordance with current accepted professional practices and manufacturer's instruction for storage. This was true for one (1) of one (1) medication storage rooms inspected. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Policy Review A review of the policy, titled: Storage of Medications, effective date of 09/01/2020, under Section J., noted the medication storage conditions were to be monitored on a monthly basis by the consultant pharmacist, pharmacy designee, or facility staff and corrective action taken if problems were identified. Under the section, labeled; Temperature, under sub-section C. showed Medications requiring refrigeration were to be kept in a refrigerator at temperatures between 36 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 46 degrees F. b) Medication Storage Room Inspection An observation of the Medication Room, on 07/11/23 at 10:30 AM , revealed a medication refrigerator temperature log showing a temperature recorded for 07/05/23 to be 51.9 degrees Fahrenheit…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-07-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility did not properly dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) after use. This deficient had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the infection surveillance line listing was accurate and complete for two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for antibiotics. Resident identifiers: #212 and #24. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a1) Resident #212 - personal protective equipment disposal Review of Resident #212's physician's orders showed the resident was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions due to a history of multi-drug resistant organisms. During observation of Resident #212's room on 07/11/23 at 11:48 AM, used isolation gowns were noted to be overflowing from the trash can and onto…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to preserve the resident's dignity by not changing his clothing when it was soiled with food. Resident Identifier: #19. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #19 On 07/11/23 at 12:20 PM, Resident #19 was observed being fed by a staff member. On 07/11/23 at 12:55 PM, Resident #19 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the hallway outside of his room. The resident's shirt was soiled with food. On 07/11/23 at 2:15 PM, Resident #19 was observed to still be sitting in a wheelchair in the hallway outside of his room. The resident was wearing the same shirt soiled with food. On 07/11/23 at 2:18 PM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged Resident #19 had food spilled on his shirt. She stated she would change the resident's shirt. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process.

  Resident Rights 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 26 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 87% 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 $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 32% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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