287 School Street, Kilmarnock, VA 22482 · Lancaster County · (804) 435-1684
120 certified beds, about 103 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2000
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 495345 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 20, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Virginia average is 14.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 28 health citations since January 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $40,290 in the last three years; the largest was $40,290, and the latest is dated February 20, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.55 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Virginia and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.57 of those hours.
61.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Virginia average 48.1%).
CMS links it to Marquis Health Services, an affiliated group of 90 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement interventions to aid in the prevention and decline of pressure ulcers for one resident (Resident (R) R110) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility's failure to implement pressure ulcer prevention interventions resulted in multiple pressure ulcers after admission, including one stage 4 and one stage 3 pressure ulcer, along with three unstageable pressure ulcers and has the potential for other residents to develop pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living were provided for four residents (Residents (R)4, R18, R56, and R59) in a total sample of 32. The facility failed to provide showers per the shower schedule and resident preference for R4, R18, R56, and R59. This failure placed residents at risk for skin breakdown and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet the needs of the 108 residents in the facility. Six residents (Resident (R) 46, R56, R4, R18, R59 and R110), five Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA5, CNA7, CNA8, CNA10 and CNA17) and the Staff Coordinator voiced concerns regarding sufficient staffing. The facility exhibited multiple failures related to a lack of sufficient staffing throughout the survey which has the potential to affect the residents quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene between contact with residents while serving lunch trays for 28 of 108 residents in the facility and failed to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene prior to carrying bagged dirty linen in the hall. This failure had the potential to spread infection between residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide information and choices to one of one resident (Resident (R)13) family member (FM) that R13 was receiving psychiatric visits. This deficient practice has the potential to affect the resident's quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse by staff for one resident (Resident (R) 59) in a total sample of 32. This failure placed residents at risk of being demeaned and lower self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse for one resident (Resident (R) 59) in a total sample of 32. This failure placed residents at risk of further abuse and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment withing 14 days of completing the assessment for two residents (Residents (R)89 and R117) in a total sample of 32. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to refer two residents (Resident (R)8 and R97) in a sample of 31 for Level II Pre admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluation and determination after each was identified with a new diagnosis of mental illness. This failure created the potential for a lack of specialized and rehabilitation services to benefit the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Fall Care Plan was updated to include interventions related to a fractured wrist for one resident (Resident (R) 20) in a total sample of 32. This failure placed residents at risk for increased complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services for one resident (Resident (R) 20) in a total sample of 31. The facility failed to monitor a fractured right wrist for increased swelling and bruising for R20. This failure placed the residents at risk of medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an active physician order for oxygen administration for one resident (Resident (R) 9) reviewed for oxygen administration of 31sample residents. This failure had the potential for the residents to receive increased oxygen causing hyperoxia (cells, tissues and organs are exposed to an excess supply of oxygen).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide documentation, when declined, that indicated that the resident and/or representative was provided education of the risks/benefits of the influenza and pneumonia vaccines for three of five residents (Residents (R)2, R19, and R20) reviewed for influenza and pneumonia vaccinations in a total sample of 31. This failure placed the residents or representatives of not knowing what the risk/benefits were of the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines before declining the vaccine.
Inspectors wroteBased on Staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to complete a skilled nursing facility (SNF) Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) for two residents, (Resident #32, and #53), in a sample of 3 ABN resident reviews. 1. For Resident #32, no SNF/ABN was signed prior to discharge from skilled services. 2. For Resident #53, no SNF/ABN was signed prior to discharge from skilled services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to properly store narcotic medications in one of two medication rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment for 2 Residents (Residents #6 and #31), in a survey sample of 38 Residents. For Residents #6 and #31, the facility staff failed to repair a sink cabinet located within the Resident's room, to maintain a safe and homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to develop and implement an accurate and complete comprehensive care plan for 1 Resident (#46) in a survey sample of 38 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to implement measures to prevent further decrease range of motion for 1 Resident (#46) in a survey sample of 38 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain one mechanical lift in a safe operational manner, in a sample of 4 mechanical lifts observed. The facility staff failed to ensure the sling bar safety latches were present on one mechanical lift.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed for 1 resident (Resident #30) in the survey sample of 36 residents, to ensure that the Registered Dietician's recommendation was submitted to the attending physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide assistance for recommended dental services for one Resident (Resident #1) in a survey sample of 38 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to adhere to soiled linen protocol for 1 resident (Resident #20) and failed to adhere to infection control guidelines in accordance with The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for 1 Residents (Resident #35) and in a sample size of 37 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide COVID-19 immunization for 1 resident, Resident #6, in a survey sample of 5 residents reviewed for COVID-19 immunization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to A) remove known hazards (long cords) from a resident's private room after a suicide attempt by strangulation and during active verbalizations of suicidal ideation for one Resident (Resident #12) in a sample of 27 residents and; B) the facility staff failed to supervise and monitor Resident #12 after he expressed recurring thoughts of death that resulted in a suicide attempt resulting in psychosocial harm. On 01/23/2019 at 4:20 PM, immediate jeopardy was called. On 01/23/2019 at 5:00 PM, immediate jeopardy was abated and was lowered to a level 3 isolated due to the failure of staff to supervise and monitor Resident #12 prior to his suicide attempt on 04/20/2018.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, Resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility saff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan after Resident verbalized suicidal ideations resulting in a suicide attempt on [DATE] for one Resident (Resident #12) in a sample size of 27 residents. This resulted in harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to notify the ombudsman of transfer to a hospital for one Resident (Resident #12) in a sample size of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to ensure a Level II PASARR was completed for one Resident (Resident #12) in a sample size of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, Resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to obtain a PASARR Level 2 after Resident #12 verbalized suicidal ideation and resulting in a suicide attempt on [DATE] for one Resident (Resident #12) in a sample size of 27 residents.
4 fire safety citations on file: 2 on February 20, 2026, 2 on February 3, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 20, 2026 | Fine | $40,290 |
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) | 2.55 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.57 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.14 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.37 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.62 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 61.6% | 48.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 48.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.84 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 2.72 on weekdays and 2.14 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.75 in April to June 2025 to 2.55 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 | 2.55 | 0.57 | 2.72 | 2.14 | 2.3% | 0 of 90 | 103 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.55 | 0.43 | 2.69 | 2.20 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.97 | 0.50 | 3.17 | 2.47 | 2.1% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.75 | 0.46 | 2.93 | 2.30 | 10.0% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 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 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 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 | 12.5 | 15.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 4.7 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.3 | 14.2 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.2 | 22.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.7 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Lancashire Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.4% 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. 63 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 80 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 44 eligible stays.
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: 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. 16 residents counted.
3.0% 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. 33 residents counted.
4.1% 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. 33 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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.
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: LANCASHIRE OPERATOR LLC. CMS links this home to Marquis Health Services, a group of 90 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kahanow, Aviva | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Rokeach, Fraide | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Truist Bank | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 09/10/2025 | |
| Buckley, Erik | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2025 | |
| Payne, Amy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Viroja, Yogesh | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Payne, Amy | Corporate director | Individual | 09/11/2025 | |
| Healthcare Services Group Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/10/2025 | |
| Marquis Limited LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/10/2025 | |
| Virginia Health Rehabilitation Agency, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/10/2025 | |
| Hovland, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Payne, Amy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Posen, Mindee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Flagler, Osher | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/21/2025 | |
| Levovitz, Tzvi | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 09/09/2025 | |
| Rokowsky, Yitzchok | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/21/2025 | |
| Healthcare Services Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/09/2025 | |
| Marquis Limited LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/08/2025 | |
| Nfr 2020 Irrv Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Quinto Nexgen LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Rsbrmk Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Sk Nexgen Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Tryko Nexgen Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Uak 2020 Irrv Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Ukr Nexgen LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Virginia Health Rehabilitation Agency, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/09/2025 | |
| Yk Nexgen Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Yr Nexgen Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/15/2025 | |
| Buckley, Erik | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/22/2025 | |
| Hovland, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Payne, Amy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/10/2025 | |
| Viroja, Yogesh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/10/2025 |
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.