214 Weaver Ave, Emporia, VA 23847 · Emporia City County · (434) 348-2150
65 certified beds, about 62 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 495199 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 28, 2023, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Virginia average is 14.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since October 2018, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.07 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Virginia and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
45.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Virginia average 48.1%).
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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff charged the Resident and deducted from their patient trust account, funds in excess what was due to the facility for three Residents (Resident #17, #37 and #23), in a survey sample of 6 Residents reviewed with trust accounts. This happened on five occasions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to serve the planned menu as approved by the facility's Registered Dietitian (RD) to residents with physician's orders for regular, mechanical soft, or pureed diets. This failure had the potential to affect 61 residents who were served meals from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to serve milk from the kitchen's tray line at an internal temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F.) or below and staff failed to wear hair restraints when they served soup to residents from two crock pots in the facility's main dining room for 25 out of 61 residents who consumed meals prepared at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection on 2 of 2 nursing units, which had the potential to affect multiple Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to assess for appropriateness of self-administration of medications for 1 Resident (Resident #23) in a survey sample of 44 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have call bells accessible for two of two residents (Resident (R)5, and R19) reviewed for accommodation of needs out of 44 sampled residents. These failures had the potential to cause a delay in the provision of care for these two residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to offer and/or provide Advance Directive planning for 2 residents, Resident #15 and Resident #44, in a survey sample of 44 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to continue skilled services and bill the Resident as requested on the SNF ABN notice (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice) issued to 2 Residents (Resident #14 and #44) in a survey sample of 3 Residents, reviewed for such notices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the care plan following a significant weight loss affecting one Resident (Resident #4) in a survey sample of 44 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards for 3 residents, Resident #55, Resident #34, and Resident #52, in a sample size of 44 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure quality of care based on professional standards and the person-centered care plan was provided for one Resident (Resident #38) in a survey sample of 44 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide/arrange for one Resident (Resident #13) in a survey sample of 44 Residents to obtain new prescription lenses in her glasses, as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers for one Resident (Resident #35) in a survey sample of 44 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide splints to address range of motion loss and/or contractures for two of five residents (Resident (R)19, and R5) reviewed for limited range of motion. These failures had the potential to cause worsening contractures for these two residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to administer enteral feedings as ordered for one of one sampled Resident (R)213 reviewed for enteral feedings. This failure had the potential to cause weight loss and/or other nutritional complications for this resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement a system to assure the accurate accounting of controlled medications on 2 of 3 medication carts inspected and failed to ensure medications were available for use for 1 (Resident #55) of 44 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, Resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to offer routine dental care for one Resident (Resident #13) in a survey sample of 44 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and electronic medical record (EMR) review, the facility failed to provide dental services for 4 of 8 residents (Resident (R) 6, R19, R29, R48).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one of 27 sampled residents (Resident (R) 6) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan to address R6's dental status/missing teeth.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure for one of one resident reviewed for the use of side rails in a sample of 20 residents (Resident (R)3, that R3 had been assessed for the use of side rails, a physician's order had been obtained for the use of side rails, and a care plan developed with specific interventions for the use of the side rails. The assessment for the use of side rails indicated not needed, no physicians order was obtained and no care plan developed for R3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to prevent and treat pressure wounds for 2 residents (Resident #1 and #35) of 26 residents in the survey sample resulting in harm for Resident #1. 1. For Resident #1, the facility did not provide an air mattress for four months, did not administer a physician order for Flagyl (antibiotic) for nine days and did not obtain a wound consult until ten days after it was ordered by the physician. This resulted in harm. 2. For Resident #35, the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent pressure injuries. Resident #35 had three deep fingernail indentations in the right palm of the Resident's hand that had contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review, the facility failed to, for one resident, Resident #43, in a survey sample of 26 residents, to ensure the resident's mechanical soft diet was followed, resulting in harm. Resident #43 was served cantaloupe chunks instead of a fruit crisp that was on the Registered Dietician's approved menu. As a result of eating a cantaloupe chunk, the resident choked and required the Heimlich maneuver and suctioning.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident #43 was placed on Seroquel (antipsychotic) 50 mg (milligrams) twice daily for dementia without behavioral disturbance. There is no appropriate diagnosis for use and the medication is associated with increased risk of death in the elderly with dementia. Additionally, there were no care plan interventions to address behaviors or for the continued use of an antipsychotic. Resident # 43 was admitted to the facility 3-4-17. Her diagnoses included but were not limited to: Stroke, dementia and hemiplegia. Resident #43's most recent MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 9-24-18 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #43 was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Memory Status) Score of 9 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed for 5 Residents (Resident #23, #13, #28, #53, #43) in a sample of 26 residents to ensure they were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. 1. For Resident #23, the facility staff failed to ensure he was free from the psychotropic medication Seroquel which is not indicated for residents with the diagnosis of dementia with or without behavioral disturbances. 2. For Resident #13, the facility staff failed to ensure she was free from the psychotropic medication Risperdal which is not indicated for residents with a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program. The facility staff failed to monitor antibiotic usage and collect outcome data until June, 2018.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed for Resident #28 of the survey sample of 26 residents, to ensure the right to be informed of treatment risks, and alternatives of psychotropic medications. The facility staff failed to fully inform Resident #28's Responsible Party of the increased risk of death from Seroquel, and possible alternatives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to obtain a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) prior to admission for 1 resident (Resident #53) of 26 residents in the survey sample. For Resident #53, the facility did not receive or review the PASARR prior to admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility failed, for one resident (Resident #35) in a survey sample of 26 residents, to complete a comprehensive care plan. 1. For Resident #35, the facility failed to devise a plan for patient-centered activities pertaining to the potential for sensory deprivation and isolation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and clinical record review the facility staff failed to revise the care plan for 3 residents (Resident #56, #6, and #13) of 26 residents in the survey sample. 1. Resident #56's care plan did not address pain management. 2. The facility failed to revise the care plan and provide a bed alarm as ordered for Resident # 6. 3. For Resident #13, the facility failed to revise the care plan when the antipsychotic medication was initiated on 09/10/2018.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility documentation, the facility failed to assess and provide on-going resident-centered activities for one Resident (Resident #35) out of a sample of 26 residents. Resident #35 was observed to be in his room for 3 days without getting out of bed and with no meaningful activities provided. In addition, between 07/02/2018 through 08/12/2018 the resident only attended two church services, a bible study, and two exercise sessions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the highest practicable well being for 1 resident (Resident #25) in a survey sample of 26 residents. Resident #25 did not have on her physician ordered TEDS (clot preventing/treatment of edema) stockings during the days of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to provide toileting supervision and implement fall interventions for 2 residents (Resident #56, #6) of 26 residents in the survey sample. 1. Resident #56 required total dependence of one staff while toileting. She was observed alone on the toilet in her room. 2. For Resident #6, the facility failed to implement a bed alarm as a fall intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to implement a toileting program for 1 resident (Resident #56) of 26 residents in the survey sample. Resident #56 was not toileted every 2 hours as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to provide pain management for 1 resident (Resident #56) of 26 residents in the survey sample. Resident #56 expressed having pain but did not have pain management in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview facility documentation review, the facility pharmacy failed, for 1 resident (#28) to report irregularities in monthly reviews. 1. For Resident #28 the facility pharmacy failed to identify a contraindication with Seroquel and Dementia.
25 fire safety citations on file: 5 on July 28, 2023, 6 on April 23, 2021, 14 on October 12, 2018.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.07 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.75 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.73 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.7% | 48.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 48.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.61 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 3.20 on weekdays and 2.75 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.07 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 | 3.07 | 0.62 | 3.20 | 2.75 | 0.8% | 0 of 90 | 62 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.04 | 0.56 | 3.16 | 2.74 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.89 | 0.51 | 3.02 | 2.56 | 2.3% | 0 of 92 | 66 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.01 | 0.54 | 3.14 | 2.68 | 1.0% | 0 of 91 | 62 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 20.2 | 14.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 30.9 | 15.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 4.7 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 14.2 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.7 | 22.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.5 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Greensville Health and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.7% this home
No different from 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. 130 eligible stays.
10.1% 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. 154 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 94 eligible stays.
46.0% 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. 76 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 121 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 121 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 19 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: EMPORIA NURSING LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enh LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2022 |
| Jcr Ops, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Sj Ops LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Edmands, Anthony | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Swain, William | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Edmands, Anthony | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Swain, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Edmands, Anthony | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Swain, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| White, Janet | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Emporia Medical Associates PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Enh LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/19/2025 | |
| Edmands, Anthony | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Swain, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| White, Janet | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 |
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.