Home / Virginia / Charlottesville
1540 Founders Place, Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Albemarle County · (434) 422-4800
120 certified beds, about 117 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2016
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 495420 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 25, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Virginia average is 14.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since March 2021, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $197,490 in the last three years; the largest was $134,196, and the latest is dated October 25, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.65 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Virginia and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.48 of those hours.
61.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Virginia average 48.1%).
CMS links it to Lifeworks Rehab, an affiliated group of 64 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to: provide supervision for a resident identified as having exit-seeking behaviors; develop and implement interventions to prevent a resident elopement; ensure the accuracy of elopement risk assessments and timeliness of reassessment upon the identification of exit-seeking behaviors; ensure the facility's protocol for a missing resident (Code Orange) was promptly and correctly implemented when Resident #127 eloped from the facility on 05/11/2025 without staff knowledge; ensure Resident #133, identified by the facility as being at risk for elopement had their admission Record included in the facility's elopement binder; and ensure Resident #133's wander guard was securely attached. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure prompt resolution of grievances voiced by 3 (Residents #72, #80, and #96) of 8 residents who attended the Resident Council meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to promote the dignity of 6 (Residents #7, #8, #41, #47, #97, and #112) of 27 sampled residents. Specifically, staff failed to knock and gain permission before they entered the room of Resident #41 and Resident #112; failed to perform a fingerstick blood sugar reading for Resident #7 in a private area; and failed to serve the lunch meal for Residents #8, #47, and #97, who were all seated at a table together at the same time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to conduct an ongoing quarterly assessment to determine if a resident could safely administer their medication(s) as directed by the facility policy for 1 (Resident #72) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for choices. The facility further failed to have evidence of a completed assessment to determine if a resident was able to self-administer their albuterol inhaler for 1 (Resident #87) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (Resident #127) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure ordered medication was available for administration for 1 (Resident #128) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for change of condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the administrative staff failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the elopement of Resident #127 from the facility on 05/11/2025. This deficient practice affected 1 (Resident #127) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident elopement involving 1 (Resident #127) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents was reviewed by the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #5) of 27 sampled residents' rooms was free of pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow abuse prevention policies regarding volunteers for eight of nine volunteer records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff allowed self-administration of medications without a prior assessment or physician's order for two of eight residents in the survey sample (Residents #5 and #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of quality during medication administration for two of eight residents in the survey sample (Residents #5 and #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow physician orders for medication administration for one of eight residents in the survey sample (Resident #4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications remained secured in locked compartments and/or carts for two of eight residents in the survey sample (Residents #5 and #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to include insulin administration in the baseline care plan for one of three residents in the survey sample (Resident #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to review and revise a comprehensive care plan for one resident, Resident #13 (R13) out of three residents in the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide sufficient dietary staff to provide timely meal delivery on four of four units.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide timely breakfast service on four of four units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a therapeutic diet and provide foods correctly per meal ticket for four of five residents in the survey sample (Residents #1 through #4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner from the main kitchen and on two of four kitchenettes (200-unit, 300-unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to accommodate a preference for showers twice each week for one of five residents in the survey sample (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of care for one of five residents in the survey sample (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow physician orders for one of five residents in the survey sample (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature on one of four units (200-unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide foods accommodating resident preferences for one of five residents in the survey sample (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide feeding assistance for 2 of 5 resident in the survey sample, Resident #4 (R4) and Resident #5 (R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide incontinence care to one resident (resident #2- R2), in a survey sample of five residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for one resident (Resident #1- R1), in a survey sample of five residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care for a PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) for one of nine residents in the survey sample (Resident #104).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration to one of nine residents in the survey sample (Resident #108).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, clinical record, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to provide treatment and services to prevent a worsening stage three pressure ulcer for one of 12 residents, resulting in harm for Resident #8 (R8), and failed to assess and implement treatment timely for a stage three pressure ulcer for one of 12 residents in the survey sample, Resident #5 (R5). 1. R8 did not have an accurate skin assessment, resulting in a delay in treatment of a worsening stage three pressure ulcer/wound. 2. R5 had a delay in treatment of a stage three pressure ulcer/wound.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review the facility failed to notify the responsibly party (RP) of a change in condition for one of 12 residents. The Findings Include: Resident #7 (R7) had a ground level fall, and the RP was not notified. According to the clinical record, diagnoses for R7 included peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, dementia, walking difficulty, and falls. The most current MDS (minimum data set - assessment tool) was an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/4/23. R7 was assessed with a cognitive score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of a (late entry) progress note dated 1/16/24 noted . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for two of 12 residents (Resident 7 & Resident 9). 1. Assessments were not completed for Resident #7 (R7) after a fall. 2. A syringe with needle was not properly disposed of for R9. The Findings Include: 1. Assessments were not completed for Resident #7 (R7) after a fall. According to the clinical record, diagnoses for R7 included peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, dementia, walking difficulty, and falls. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/4/23. R7 was assessed with a cognitive score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of a (late entry) progress note dated 1/16/24 noted . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to implement interventions for a skin condition for one of 12 residents (Resident #9). The Findings Include: Resident #9 (R9) did not have interventions for a skin rash to the groin area. According to the closed record review, diagnoses for R9 included diabetes, dementia, and abscess of right foot. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was a 5 day assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/26/23, which assessed R9 with a cognitive score of 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of R9's Skin Observation Tool, dated 1/30/2023, 2/6/2023, and 2/10/2023 documented R9 had a Rash to the Groin. Review of the physician's orders did not evidence any interventions, including treatments, that were ordered for the rash. R9's care plan was also reviewed and did not show interventions for R9's rash. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility failed to administer tube feeding per physician order for one resident (Resident #12, R12) in a survey sample of 12 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration to one of nine residents in the survey sample (Resident #108).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to honor food preferences for one of twelve residents in the survey sample (Resident #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for one of twelve residents in the survey sample (Resident #6)
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and during the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to ensure adequate supervision and/or interventions for the prevention of falls for one of 25 residents (Resident #111), which resulted in actual harm and failed to ensure one of 25 residents (Resident #7) was safe when consuming hot liquids.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to serve food in a sanitary manner. Hot food items were served from the steam table on unit 3 below the safe/recommended temperature of 135 degrees (F). Dietary staff entered the unit 3 kitchen during meal service without washing hands. A maintenance employee entered the unit 3 kitchen during food service without a hairnet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and review of facility documents, the facility failed for one of 25 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 109) to provide a dignified dining experience. Staff were observed feeding Resident # 109 while standing next to him.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to document a DNR (DO NOT RESUSCITATE) status in the clinical record for one of 25 residents, Resident #93.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint investigation, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed for resident of 25 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 112), to notify the resident's family of a change in condition. Resident # 112 suffered a change in mental status that was not communicated to the resident's family.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed for one of 25 residents in the survey sample, to ensure the resident had a completed Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR). Resident # 109 did not have a PASARR completed at admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop a baseline care plan for one of 25 residents in the survey sample. Resident #107 did not have a baseline care plan for a PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) line. The Findings Include: Diagnoses for Resident #107 included: Acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus), and diabetes. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was a 5 day assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/26/22. Resident #107's cognitive score was a 12 indicating moderately cognitively intact. Resident #107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] On 9/06/22 at 3:45 PM an interview with Resident #107 was attempted. During the interview Resident #107 was asked about the PICC line observed in the right upper arm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of twenty-five residents in the survey sample. Resident #102 had no care plan developed regarding diabetic management, anticoagulant use and epilepsy. Residents #22 had no individualized care plan for recreational activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and during the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to review and revise the CCP (comprehensive care plan) for one of 25 residents in the survey sample. Resident #111's CCP was not reviewed and revised for adequate fall interventions and/or supervision for the prevention of falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to respond to a pharmacy recommendation for one of twenty-five residents in the survey sample. Resident #57's recommendation regarding continued use of antibiotics had no physician response.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one of 22 residents in the survey sample was free of unnecessary psychotropic medications. Resident #56 had physician orders for as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications that extended for more than 14 days without a stop date.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure expired medications were not readily available for distribution on the 200 unit and 300 unit, and failed to label an open vial of insulin on the 400 unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to store food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow infection prevention control practices during communal dining on one of four units, unit 4.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to obtain physician orders for immediate care for one of 22 residents in the survey sample. Resident #142 had no physician orders upon admission for care of pressure ulcers, impaired skin integrity, and monitoring of a dialysis access port.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for one of 22 residents in the survey sample, Resident #9.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for one of 22 residents in the survey sample, Resident #142. Resident #142's baseline care plan failed the include pressure ulcers, impaired skin integrity, fall/injury prevention, and anticoagulant use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of practice during medication administration for one of 22 residents, Resident #18.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for protective arm sleeves for one of 22 resident's, Resident #8. The Findings Include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #8 included: Cellulitis, diabetes, neuropathy and dementia. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/5/20. Resident #8 was assessed with a cognitive score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 03/16/21, Resident #8's medical record was reviewed. An active physician's order, originally dated 11/24/20 documented Tubi grip [arm protectors] to both forearms Q [every] shift for protection [ .] Resident #8's current care plan included a care plan regarding skin impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to assess and provide care/treatment to pressure ulcers for one of 22 residents in the survey sample, Resident #142. Resident #142, assessed with pressure ulcers upon admission to the facility, had no assessment and interventions implemented for care/treatment of the wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure infection control practices were followed for a Foley catheter for one of 22 residents in the survey sample, Resident #54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to monitor a dialysis access port for one of 22 residents in the survey sample. For four days after admission, facility staff failed to assess Resident #142's dialysis access port for complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 22 residents, Resident #188. An After Visit Summary dated [DATE] was not completely scanned into the electronic record. Page one of the summary was identified on the bottom of the page as Page 1 of 6. The remaining five pages were not in the clinical record.
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on October 25, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 25, 2025 | Fine | $134,196 |
| March 6, 2024 | Fine | $63,294 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Virginia | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.65 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.28 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.93 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.24 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 61.5% | 48.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 48.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.33 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.79 on weekdays and 3.28 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.14 in April to June 2025 to 3.65 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.65 | 0.48 | 3.79 | 3.28 | 11.1% | 0 of 90 | 117 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.50 | 0.36 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 36.9% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.28 | 0.35 | 3.40 | 2.96 | 41.5% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.14 | 0.34 | 3.29 | 2.76 | 38.2% | 0 of 91 | 116 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Virginia, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.58 | 0.56 | 3.76 | 3.12 | 5.7% | 0.2% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.77 | $17.80 to $22.56 | 40,580 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $31.21 | $28.66 to $35.84 | 15,550 |
| Registered nurses | $45.00 | $38.51 to $49.53 | 77,490 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Virginia | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.3 | 14.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.7 | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.3 | 15.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 14.2 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.1 | 22.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.2 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Albemarle Health & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.9% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Virginia: 101 better, 22 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 438 eligible stays.
10.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Virginia: 1 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 430 eligible stays.
6.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Virginia: 2 better, 8 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 262 eligible stays.
72.4% this home
Median of homes: Virginia60.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 192 residents counted.
2.0% this home
Median of homes: Virginia0.7% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 304 residents counted.
4.3% this home
Median of homes: Virginia2.1% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 304 residents counted.
78.3% this home
Median of homes: Virginia97.8% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 129 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ALBEMARLE CARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Lifeworks Rehab, a group of 64 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albemarle Holdings I LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/28/2021 |
| Ak 2003 Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Al 2003 Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Charles 1994 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Edward 1998 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Golden 2017 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Golden 2017 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Matt 2002 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Matt 2002 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Mrcz Central LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Nathan 5604 & Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Nathan 5604 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Nathan 5604 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Pivotal Central LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Sas 1998 Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Saul 2012 Family Grantor Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Silverstone East LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/28/2021 | |
| Adams, Ronald | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/14/2023 | |
| Rybst Central Manager LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/28/2021 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Virginia. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.