Home / North Carolina / Hendersonville
200 Heritage Circle, Hendersonville, NC 28791 · Henderson County · (828) 693-5849
134 certified beds, about 101 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 345285 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 20, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the North Carolina average is 4.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 46 health citations since October 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,452 in the last three years; the largest was $16,452, and the latest is dated June 21, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.11 hours per resident per day, against 3.85 across North Carolina and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.43 of those hours.
73.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (North Carolina average 49.0%).
CMS links it to Ascent Healthcare Management, an affiliated group of 6 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for the areas of hospice (specialized care focused on nearing the end of life) (Resident #29, Resident #62, and Resident #77) and preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR, a program ensuring residents with certain diagnoses received specialty services) (Resident #10) for 4 of 30 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a bed with enough length to prevent a resident's feet from pressing against the footboard for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #48).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, referring to the last day of the observation period) for 3 of 30 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed (Residents #10, #47 and #108).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit a request for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation for a resident who was admitted to the facility with mental health disorders for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit a request for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) reevaluation after a significant change in physical or mental status was identified for residents previously determined to have a Level II PASRR. This deficient practice affected 2 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Residents #28 and #31).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews with the Medical Director, Registered Dietitian and staff, the facility failed to provide nutritional supplements according to the physician's diet order for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident #90).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete bed rail assessments to determine the need for bed rail use and failed to obtain informed consent prior to installation for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #47 and #53). Findings Included:a. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His cumulative diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen), muscle weakness, and chronic pain. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 had intact cognition and range of motion impairment on both sides of the lower extremities. The MDS assessment noted Resident #47 required supervision or touching assistance with bed mobility, was independent with moving from a sitting-to-lying position and bed rails were not used as a physical restraint. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews with the Speech Therapist and staff, the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect the current diet as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #1). The findings including: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. He required partial to moderate assistance with eating, and no signs or symptoms of a swallowing disorder were noted. The care plan last revised on 4/23/25 indicated Resident #1 received a regular diet with thin liquids and included the intervention to provide the diet as ordered by the physician. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews with the Speech Therapist and staff, the facility failed to provide fluids of a nectar thick consistency as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the meal service tray line, record review, and dietary staff, Registered Dietician (RD), and the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) interviews, the facility failed to provide all food items as specified by the approved menu and failed ensure residents received the correct portion sizes based on the approved menu. These practices had the potential to affect 77 residents receiving a regular diet, 18 residents receiving a mechanical soft diet (consisting of foods that are easy to swallow), and 8 residents receiving a puree diet (consisting of foods with a pudding-like texture).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a clean floor in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler, 1 of 1 walk-in freezer, 1 of 1 dry storage rooms, and 1 of 1 kitchen; label and date open food items and discard expired food in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler and 2 of 2 reach-in coolers; cover and date open food items in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer and 1 of 1 reach-in cooler; date milkshakes to identify their use-by date in 1 of 1 reach-in cooler; maintain clean shelves on 5 prep tables in 1 of 1 kitchen; discard expired bread in 1 of 1 kitchen; and maintain clean refrigerators and freezers in 2 of 2 nourishment rooms (200 hall and 300 hall). This failure had the potential to affect food served to residents.
Inspectors wrote6. An observation of the dresser of room [ROOM NUMBER]-B on 12/02/24 at 11:32 AM revealed an area of missing wood to the top of the dresser on the side closest to the bed, leaving an exposed sharp corner. Additional observations of the dresser of room [ROOM NUMBER]-B on 12/03/24 at 8:55 AM, on 12/04/23 at 7:42 AM, and 12/05/24 at 7:34 AM revealed an area of missing wood to the top of the dresser on the side closest to the bed, leaving an exposed sharp corner. An interview with the Maintenance Director on 12/04/24 at 10:57 AM revealed he was not aware of the top of the dresser in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B having missing wood resulting in a sharp corner being exposed. He stated he relied on nursing staff to notify him of rough edges on furniture since he was busy working on other projects. The Maintenance Director stated the dresser would need to be replaced. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the Regional Ombudsman when residents discharged or transferred from the facility for 6 of 6 months (April 2024, July 2024, August 2024, September 2024, October 2024, and November 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, referring to the last day of the assessment period) (Residents #6, #16, #21, #28, #29, #47, #68, and #78) and failed to comprehensively complete the Care Area Assessment (CAA) for Resident #89 for 9 of 45 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, referring to the last day of the observation period) for 14 of 45 sampled residents (Residents #6, #15, #16, #21, #28, #29, #42, #47, #48, #68, #78, #81, #83, and #85).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and Medical Director (MD) and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were performed every 30 days for the first 90 days of admission for 4 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for physician visits (Residents #21, #31, #41, and #55).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to invite residents to participate and provide input in care planning for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #50 and #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident could access a light switch located at the left side of her bed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #91).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate advanced directives throughout the medical record for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #65).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician when a urinalysis was not completed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for notification of change (Resident #38).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy and procedure by not immediately reporting an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to the Administrator for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) before the expiration date and failed to develop comprehensive care plans that incorporated Level II PASRR determination for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #21 and #104).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a discharge planning process in place that incorporated the resident in the development of a discharge care plan that addressed the resident's discharge goals and post-discharge needs for residents who wished to discharge to the community for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #50 and #70).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with the Medical Director, Nurse Practitioner, and staff the facility failed to obtain a blood sugar as part of the change of condition assessment for a resident with a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that was being treated with routine oral blood glucose lowering medication for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a change of condition (Resident #205).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a Nurse Aide (NA #8) transferred a resident safely for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews with the resident and staff the facility failed to ensure the urinary catheter tubing was secured to the leg to prevent movement and trauma for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #87).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and Consultant Pharmacist, Medical Director, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure antibiotic eye drops were received from the pharmacy as ordered which resulted in five (5) missed doses for 1 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for pharmacy services (Resident #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and Medical Director, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when they failed to administer antibiotic eye drops as prescribed by the physician. As a result, Resident #11 missed 5 doses of antibiotic eye drops. This affected 1 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews and record review, the facility failed to complete an ordered Urinalysis for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for laboratory services (Resident #38).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to honor a resident's food preferences for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for food preferences (Resident #31).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, staff, Registered Dietician (RD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to provide Resident #52 with a renal diet as ordered. This failure affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record when staff documented that they applied a splint when a splint was not applied. This occurred for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #73) reviewed for accurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, the facility failed to have a qualified professional to direct the facility's activity program. This practice had the potential to affect all 106 residents at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and entry tracking records within the regulated timeframes for 2 of 14 residents reviewed for resident assessments (Resident #47 and #83).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews with the resident and staff the facility failed to install a privacy curtain and failed to ensure the privacy curtain extended around the bed for 2 of 9 rooms reviewed for environment (room [ROOM NUMBER]-A and #304-A).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff, Law Enforcement Corporal, and Medical Doctor (MD) interviews, the facility failed to protect a [AGE] year old female resident with severe cognitive impairment (Resident #2) from sexual abuse by a [AGE] year old male resident with moderate impairment in cognition (Resident #1) for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. Resident #1 was observed with his shorts/boxers pulled down lying in bed next to and behind Resident #2, whose gown was pulled up exposing her breasts and her brief pulled down between her legs, with the perceived intention of engaging in sexual activity. Based upon the reasonable person concept, a person in Resident #2's position would have expected to be protected from abuse in their home environment and non-consensual sexual activity would have caused psychosocial harm and trauma such as feelings of fear, anxiety and humiliation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedures in the areas of employee training and investigation by not preserving evidence that could be used in a sexual assault allegation. Nurse #1 and Nurse Aide #1 provided incontinent care to a [AGE] year old female resident with severe impairment in cognition (Resident #2) and disposed of the brief after finding a [AGE] year old male resident with moderate impairment in cognition (Resident #1) with his short/boxers pulled down lying in bed up close and behind the female resident with the perceived intention of engaging in sexual activity. This deficient practice affected 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to employ a Social Worker (SW) who had a minimum of a bachelor's degree in social work or human services field when the skilled nursing facility had 134 certified beds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure toenails were trimmed and refer a resident to podiatry services for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #85) reviewed for foot care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, resident, staff, Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to re-order medications from the pharmacy when there were 5 doses left to ensure medications were available to be administered for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #15 and Resident #35) reviewed for significant medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, resident, staff, Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the physician that included Xarelto for atrial fibrillation, Baclofen for muscle spasms, Gabapentin for pain, Fentanyl patch for pain and Copaxone injections for Multiple Sclerosis. This occurred for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #15 and Resident #35) reviewed for significant medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to obtain dental services needed for extractions for 1 of 2 resident's reviewed for dental services (Resident #62). The Findings Included: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included congestive heart failure and kidney disease. The annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] coded Resident #62 as cognitively intact and with no dental concerns. A review of Resident #62's dental records revealed Resident #62 last received dental service on 10/7/22 and a dental consent for tooth extractions was signed on 10/21/22 by Resident # 62 and a Nurse Practitioner. A review of Resident #62's medical record and progress notes revealed no additional dental exams or dental notes after the signed consent on 10/22/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with staff, the facility failed to clean 2 of 2 ice scoop holders and failed to store an ice scoop under sanitary conditions. This practice had the potential to affect beverages served to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) process failed to implement, monitor, and revise as needed the action plan developed for the recertification and complaint surveys dated 07/11/22 and 07/23/21 to achieve and sustain compliance. This was for 1 recited deficiency on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 10/13/23 related to food procurement, store/prepare/serve-sanitary. The continued failure during three federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective quality assurance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews with the resident, staff and the Medical Director, the facility failed to provide nail care to 1 of 2 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to store unopened medications in the temperatures specified by manufacturer's guidelines for 1 or 4 medications carts observed during medication storage checks (A hall medication cart #2).
29 fire safety citations on file: 7 on February 20, 2026, 15 on December 6, 2024, 7 on October 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 21, 2024 | Fine | $16,452 |
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 | North Carolina | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.11 | 3.85 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.43 | 0.62 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.80 | 3.42 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.09 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.59 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 73.5% | 49.0% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 45.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.48 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 3.24 on weekdays and 2.80 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 50.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.11 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 | 3.11 | 0.43 | 3.24 | 2.80 | 50.9% | 0 of 90 | 101 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.12 | 0.47 | 3.23 | 2.86 | 54.5% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.14 | 0.52 | 3.19 | 3.00 | 54.9% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.01 | 0.64 | 3.13 | 2.68 | 37.3% | 0 of 91 | 97 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| North Carolina, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.65 | 0.53 | 3.82 | 3.25 | 8.0% | 0.7% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.49 | $17.28 to $21.08 | 64,010 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.42 | $28.50 to $33.51 | 18,010 |
| Registered nurses | $40.56 | $37.87 to $49.06 | 111,120 |
| 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 | North Carolina | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 18.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 5.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.4 | 14.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.1 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Orchard Valley Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (30.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
30.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · North Carolina: 93 better, 25 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. 30 eligible stays.
11.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · North Carolina: 1 better, 4 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. 35 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.
US median of homes 7.1% · North Carolina: 1 better, 3 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. 17 eligible stays.
45.0% this home
Median of homes: North Carolina54.0% · 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. 20 residents counted.
3.0% this home
Median of homes: North Carolina0.6% · 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.
9.4% this home
Median of homes: North Carolina2.5% · 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: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: North Carolina97.5% · 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. 7 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: HENDERSONVILLE NC OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Ascent Healthcare Management, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friedman, Yisroel | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Ford, Albert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Hardin, Steve | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Ford, Albert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/06/2025 | |
| Hardin, Steve | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/06/2025 |
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 North Carolina. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.