Home / North Carolina / Charlotte
4801 Randolph Road, Charlotte, NC 28211 · Mecklenburg County · (704) 364-8363
100 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 345134 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 17, 2025, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the North Carolina average is 4.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 47 health citations since February 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $19,663 in the last three years; the largest was $7,823, and the latest is dated April 24, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.15 hours per resident per day, against 3.85 across North Carolina and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.65 of those hours.
76.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (North Carolina average 49.0%).
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 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, residents and staff interviews, the facility failed to fill the gaps around the packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) to separate the exterior environment from the interior of the residents' rooms and failed to secure the seal around the PTACs (rooms #108, #110, #135, #151) for 4 of 8 rooms on 3 of 4 halls reviewed for homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and resident, staff and Pest Control Technician interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to prevent the presence of roaches and/or flies that were observed in 1 of 1 conference room, 1 of 1 lobby, 2 of 2 resident hallways (East and [NAME] hallways), and 4 of 4 resident rooms (Rooms 108, 109, 113, and 134).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident could access the call light device for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident, responsible party, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from resident to resident sexual abuse when Nurse Aide #7 and Floor Technician #1 observed Resident #22, a male resident, fondle a severely cognitively impaired female resident (Resident #27) when he placed his hand under her shirt near/on her bare breast. Resident #27 did not have the cognitive capacity to consent to this intimate sexual contact. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse (Resident #27).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident to resident sexual abuse to Adult Protective Services (APS) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident to resident abuse (Resident #27).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff and Ombudsman interviews, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman in writing of the resident's discharge home for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #88).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide treatment to a resident's bilateral legs for arterial and venous ulcers (an ulcer due to inadequate blood supply) as specified in the physician orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for arterial and venous wounds (Resident #2). In addition, the facility failed to ensure transportation was arranged for a resident to attend a scheduled appointment with a Gastroenterologist (doctor who specializes in gastrointestinal issues). This occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medical appointments (Resident #97).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, family member, staff, Nurse Practitioner, wound care physician, and Assisted Living Facility Executive Director interviews, the facility failed to identify, assess, and obtain wound care orders for a wound on the left ankle for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident #89).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff, resident, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews and record review, the facility failed to assess resident's feet to determine if nail care was needed, ensure resident's toenails were trimmed and podiatry services were arranged for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for foot care (Resident #3 and Resident #2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide safe mechanical lift transfers when the lift swung and hit the resident on the forehead resulting in a hematoma (collection of blood outside of a blood vessel) (Resident #56). In addition, staff failed to follow manufacturer guidelines for the use of a mechanical lift (Resident #5). This affected 2 of 3 residents reviewed for free of accident hazards, supervision and devices (Resident #56 and Resident #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to empty urinary drainage bag and secure urinary catheter tubing with anchoring device to prevent trauma to urinary opening or dislodgment of the catheter. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheter care (Resident #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow procedure for labeling a continuous gastrostomy tube (a tube surgically placed in the stomach to provide nutrition, hydration, and medications) feeding. This deficient practice was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for enteral (the administration of nutrients directly into the gastrointestinal tract through a tube) feeding management (Resident #3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was delivered at the prescribed rate for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care and services (Resident #3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow their Enhanced Barrier precaution policy when Nurse #2 did not don (put on) a gown to administer medications via gastrostomy (tube in the stomach) tube and Nurse Aide (NA) #1 did not don a gown to provide care to a urinary catheter for Resident #5. Additionally, the facility did not follow their hand hygiene policy or their clean dressing policy when the Wound Nurse failed to clean and sanitize her hands while preparing for a wound dressing after coming in contact with unclean surfaces. The deficient practice occurred for 3 of 10 staff (Nurse #2, NA #1, and Wound Nurse) observed for infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the call light system was functioning properly for 1 of 2 residents who required assistance for activities of daily living (Resident #66).
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, and interviews with staff, Hospice Nurse, Medical Director and Consultant Pharmacist, the facility failed to limit the duration of an antipsychotic medication (a drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behaviors) ordered on an as needed (PRN) basis to 14 days and failed to monitor for abnormal involuntary movements on a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication (Resident #63) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff, Medical Director, Vascular Physician Assistant (PA), Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when a resident did not receive an antiplatelet medication as ordered. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #68) reviewed for significant medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have advanced directives accurate throughout the medial record for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #47 and Resident #45) reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% by having 2 errors out of 27 opportunities which resulted in an 7.41% medication error rate. This affected 1 of 3 residents observed for medication administration (Resident # 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, staff, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interview the facility failed to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) while providing wound care for a resident requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This deficit practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for EBP (Resident #68).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to keep a urinary catheter drainage bag off the floor to reduce the risk of infection for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with urinary catheters (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to post nurse staffing data at the beginning of each shift for 2 of 2 days of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to update the comprehensive person-centered individualized care plan to reflect an assessment to self-administer medications. This failure occurred for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for self-administration of medications (Resident #3).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, Transporter #1 failed to call emergency medical services (EMS) or have a resident assessed by a medical professional before moving Resident #1 after his wheelchair tipped over and he fell to the floor of a transportation van. On 1/19/24 Transporter #1 pulled out of the dialysis center parking lot and Resident #1's wheelchair tipped backwards, and he hit the left occipital region of his head. Transporter #1 pulled the transportation van over to a parking lot and pulled the resident back up into a sitting position and transported Resident #1 8.4 miles back to the facility. The transporter was not qualified to provide a competent physical assessment to determine if there was an adverse outcome for this resident who was on Plavix (anti-platelet medication that can have a side effect of bleeding). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide safe transportation for Resident #1 when he was being transported from dialysis back to the facility on 1/19/2024. Transporter #1 pulled out of the parking lot of the dialysis center and Resident #1's wheelchair tipped over, and he hit the left side of his head. Transporter #1 pulled the transportation van over to a parking lot, where Resident #1 insisted upon Transporter #1 sitting him back upright, and Transporter #1 pulled the resident back up into a sitting and upright position. Transporter #1 then transported Resident #1 8.4 miles back to the facility where he was assessed by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to have a bump on his head behind his left ear and he reported head pain and nausea after the fall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess whether the self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) who was observed to have a medication at bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide residents with their preferred method of bathing (Residents #135, #1, #12, #58, and #284) and failed to accommodate a resident's request to be assisted out of bed (Resident #70) for 6 of 8 residents reviewed for choices and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to repair jagged and splintered edges on the middle and lower portion of a bathroom door in the residents shared bathroom (room [ROOM NUMBER]); failed to clean the air vents and filters of the air condition and heating units in resident rooms (rooms 102, 106, 108, and 109); failed to maintain walls in good repair in a resident's room (room [ROOM NUMBER]-B) on 1 of 2 wings (West Wing). The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary side rail for a resident's bed (room [ROOM NUMBER]-A); failed to appropriately label and store personal care equipment in residents shared bathrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]); failed to maintain functioning overhead lights in residents bathrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]); failed to provide functioning soap dispensers in residents bathrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care (Resident #48), nail care (Resident #487, Resident #61, Resident #54, and Resident #185), and a shave (Resident #487) for 5 of 14 dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were alternated with the Family Nurse Practitioner's visits every 60 days for 3 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for physician visits (Residents #3, #39 and #16).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff resulting in residents not having their choices honored for bathing and not receiving transfer assistance when requested for 6 of 8 sampled residents (Residents #135, #1, #12, #58, #284, and #70).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to date and label opened food and remove expired food from 1 of 3 reach-in refrigerators. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following a recertification and complaint investigation survey completed on 11/22/21 and a complaint investigation survey completed on 02/17/22. This was for one repeat deficiency in the area of activities of daily living provided for dependent residents originally cited on 11/22/21 during a recertification and complaint investigation survey and on 02/17/22 during a complaint investigation survey. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not providing incontinence care and oral hygiene when needed, ensuring bed linen and fall mat were clean and free of food debris, and ensuring the room was free of odor for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #48). The reasonable person concept was applied to this deficiency. Individuals would expect to receive care needed and would be upset if observed with dried food debris on their mouth, bed, and floor; lying on bed linen that was not clean; and if their room smelled of urine.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the ability of a resident to self-administer medications for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for self-administration of medications (Resident # 186). Resident #186 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #186 was assessed as being cognitively intact. Review of Resident #186's medical records revealed no assessment for self-administering medications was included. Review of physician orders revealed on 02/15/23 an order was written for triamcinolone acetonide external lotion 0.1 % to apply to affected area topically two times a day for 14 days for atopic dermatitis. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate advanced directives throughout the medical record for 2 of 32 residents reviewed (Residents #18 and #29).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC) and Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notification review (Resident #27). The Findings Included: Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #27's medical record revealed no evidence a NOMNC and SNF ABN were provided to her or her Responsible Party (RP) which explained Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services would end on 10/31/22. Resident #27 remained in the facility. A joint interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW) and Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #1 on 02/22/23 at 9:36 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect when it failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for incontinence care (Resident #48). The reasonable person concept was applied to this deficiency. Individuals would expect to receive the care needed and would be upset if left in a wet bed.
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 (abbreviated as ARD and referring to the last day of the assessment period) for 2 of 32 sampled residents (Residents #75 and #135).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and hospice for 2 of 32 sampled residents reviewed for MDS accuracy (Resident #45 and #34).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) before the expiration date for 1 of 3 residents reviewed with a Level II PASRR (Resident #45).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) re-evaluation after a significant change in physical status for 1 of 3 residents diagnosed with a mental health disorder (Resident #29).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, individualized care plan that addressed Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II status for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #45).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident and staff interview the facility failed to supervise 1 of 4 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #22).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and Pharmacy Consultant, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and staff interviews the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of antipsychotic ordered 07/27/22 and antidepressant medication ordered 03/12/22 for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication (Resident #34).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to keep unattended medications stored in a locked medication cart for of 1 of 4 medication carts (East A medication storage cart) and they failed to ensure medications were under direct observation by the administering nurse who left medications unattended at the bedside for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the call light annunciator panel located at the nurses' station functioned to identify the room number and sound an alarm and failed to ensure the light above the room entry door worked when the call light at the bedside and bathroom were engaged for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for call lights on 1 of 2 wings (West Wing).
14 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 27, 2024, 10 on February 28, 2023, 1 on November 22, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 24, 2024 | Fine | $4,017 |
| April 24, 2024 | Fine | $7,823 |
| April 24, 2024 | Fine | $7,823 |
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) | 3.15 | 3.85 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.00 | 3.42 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.61 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 76.1% | 49.0% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 45.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.78 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 3.22 on weekdays and 3.00 on weekends, 7% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 29.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.08 in April to June 2025 to 3.15 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 | 3.15 | 0.65 | 3.22 | 3.00 | 29.9% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.21 | 0.73 | 3.26 | 3.09 | 23.4% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.15 | 0.73 | 3.25 | 2.91 | 30.6% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.08 | 0.51 | 3.19 | 2.82 | 25.7% | 0 of 91 | 81 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 7.8 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.4 | 18.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.8 | 14.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.9 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.1 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Pelican Health Randolph LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (34.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
34.8% 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. 28 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 33 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. 21 eligible stays.
50.0% 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. 28 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 43 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 43 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. 3 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.