Home / North Carolina / Washington
250 Lovers Lane, Washington, NC 27889 · Beaufort County · (252) 975-1636
140 certified beds, about 122 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1981
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 345215 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 22, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the North Carolina average is 4.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 30 health citations since April 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $32,991 in the last three years; the largest was $17,345, and the latest is dated July 18, 2025.
67.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (North Carolina average 49.0%).
CMS links it to Principle Long Term Care, an affiliated group of 40 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 30 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained and competent in following manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting a shared glucometer for 1 of 1 observed (Resident #34). On 8/20/25 Nurse #1 was observed obtaining Resident #34's blood glucose (sugar) level followed by the nurse cleaning the glucometer with an alcohol wipe that was not an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered disinfectant. Nurse #1 revealed she worked at the facility since March of 2025, had always used an alcohol wipe to clean the glucometer, had not been trained on how to disinfect the glucometer, and was unaware an EPA-registered disinfectant needed to be used. The Infection Preventionist revealed she was unsure what the manufacturer's guidelines were for cleaning and disinfecting a shared glucometer. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, staff and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies and procedures when Nurse #1 did not follow the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting a shared blood glucose meter (glucometer) before and after resident usage for 1 of 1 resident observed whose blood glucose (sugar) level was checked (Resident #34). On 8/20/25 Nurse #1 was observed obtaining Resident #34's blood glucose level followed by the nurse cleaning the glucometer with an alcohol wipe that was not an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered disinfectant. Nurse #1 then stated that she worked at the facility since March of 2025 and had always used an alcohol wipe to clean the glucometer indicating that she was unaware an EPA-registered disinfectant needed to be used. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and resident, staff, Medical Director, and Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from the misappropriation of their narcotic medications (oxycodone and hydrocodone) prescribed to treat pain for 4 of 8 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property (Residents #38, #24, #50, and #107).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and resident, staff, Medical Director, and Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to have effective safeguards and systems in place to prevent drug diversion of discontinued controlled narcotic and antianxiety medications (hydromorphone, oxycodone, morphine and lorazepam). This was for 3 of 8 residents reviewed for misappropriation (Residents #8, #115, and #141).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure facial hair was covered during food preparation for 1 of 1 cook observation in the kitchen. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect when a staff member did not knock or announce their presence before entering a resident's room (Resident #49) and failed to maintain residents' dignity when a resident had an uncovered urinary catheter drainage bag, leaving the urine visible to the public (Resident #7). The reasonable person concept was applied for Resident #7 as individuals have the expectation of being treated with dignity and would not want urine visible to visitors, staff and other residents. This was for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #49, Resident #7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assess a resident's ability to self-administer medications for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for self-administering medications (Residents #101). Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease, anxiety, depression and insomnia. Review of Resident #101's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #101 was cognitively intact with no delusions, behaviors, or rejection of care. Review of Resident #101's medical record revealed no documentation that Resident #101 had been assessed to self-administer medications. Further review of Resident #101's medical record revealed no care plan for self-administration of medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and resident, staff and Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the Medical Power of Attorney advanced directive document was obtained and in the resident's medical record. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #99).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized, person-centered comprehensive care plan to include the use of anticoagulant medication (Resident #54) and diabetes mellitus type II (Resident #97) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans (Resident #54 and Resident #97).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to accurately reflect the code status for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #108).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician or Nurse Practitioner (NP) of abnormal laboratory test results. This deficient practice affected 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #130). Resident #130 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obstructive sleep apnea, chronic kidney disease, chronic atrial fibrillation (a condition where the heart beats irregularly and often too fast), and congestive heart failure. Resident #130 had a telephone order called in from the NP from the Cardiology office on 10/11/24 for a BMP (basic metabolic panel, which was a common blood test that measures glucose, calcium, sodium, potassium, chloride, carbon dioxide, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine), draw to be done at the facility. The order was signed off by a nurse on 10/14/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and resident, staff, and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner. On 6/30/25 Resident #2 rolled off her bed during incontinence care and landed on the floor. Resident #2 sustained a right forearm skin tear and complained of severe pain and was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. The Resident was diagnosed with a closed fracture (the broken bone does not penetrate the skin) at the distal end (just above the knee joint) of the left femur (thighbone) and closed fracture at the distal end of the right femur. In the ED, Resident #2 required intravenous (IV) fentanyl (an opioid drug used to treat severe pain) for pain. The Resident was discharged back to the facility the same day with an immobilizer on her right knee and orders to follow up with orthopedic surgery. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to incorporate residents and/or resident representatives in the care planning process for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #9 and #24).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to discard thickened beverages by the manufacturer's use by date and failed to prevent the potential for cross-contamination by storing a plastic scoop inside the dry ingredient bin allowing the handle to touch the dry ingredient for 1 of 1 kitchen observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff and physician interviews the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag did not rest on the floor. This was for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #51) whose indwelling urinary catheters were reviewed. This placed Resident #51 at increased risk for infection of the urinary system.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to secure resident medications stored in an unattended medication cart (400 hall) for 1 of 5 medication carts. A continuous observation was conducted of the Wing D medication cart on 7/25/24 from 4:27 PM until 4:32 PM. The cart was parked midway down the hall near room [ROOM NUMBER], facing out. The cart was visible from the nurse's station; however, no staff were at the station at that time. The medication cart was observed to have the red dot on the push lock was visible, which meant the push lock was not engaged. There was no staff member with the medication cart. Two Nurse Aide's, one cognitively intact resident, and 2 visitors were observed walking past the unlocked medication cart. Medication Aide #1 came out of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] which was approximately 2 doors down the hall on the opposite side. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews with family, staff, Physician Assistant, and Physician the facility failed to monitor and assess a resident's neurological status (an assessment of motor and sensory response to determine if the nervous system is impaired) after an unwitnessed fall for a resident on an anticoagulant (Coumadin) and to recognize the seriousness of a change in condition and immediately seek emergent medical care. On [DATE] at approximately 9:30 AM Resident #1 was found in her room sitting on the floor and was unable to report what happened. At approximately 1:55 PM the resident was identified with lethargy, a change in mental status, and later developed unclear speech. The resident's family requested a transfer to the emergency room (ER) and 911 was called at 5:28 PM. [...]
Inspectors wrote3. Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of diabetes. A review of her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. She required the total assistance of one person for bathing. A review of Resident #88's current comprehensive care plan revealed a focus area of activities of daily living preferences. The goal was for her preferences to be provided through the next review. An intervention last revised on 1/26/23 was prefers a bed bath. In an interview on 4/24/23 at 3:38 PM Resident #88 stated there were times when she received a bath that some nurse aides (NAs) didn't rinse off the soap. She went on to say when she asked about this, the NAs told her it was the kind of soap that didn't need to be rinsed off. She further indicated it sometimes made her itchy, but she did not have any rash. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to determine whether the self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #10) observed to have medications at bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to honor a resident choice when to have wound care completed for 1 of 2 resident (Resident #45) reviewed for choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a complete Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) by omitting the estimated cost for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notices (Resident #46).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for protection, reporting and investigation. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #90) with an allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident had received a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) prior to admission to the facility for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #50).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan on admission for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #115) for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to care plan diabetes mellitus for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for medications (Resident #114).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the continued application of a left resting hand splint after discharge from therapy services for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for range of motion. This placed Resident #40 at risk for pain and progression of her contracture (muscle tightening).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving dialysis had a physician's order for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #24) reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident, physician, and staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) process failed to maintain implemented procedures, monitor, and revise as needed the action plans developed for the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 12/16/21 in order to sustain compliance. This was for 1 recited deficiency on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 4/27/23. The deficiency was in the area of activities of daily living care (F677). The continued failure during these federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QA program.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff and Responsible Party (RP) interviews the facility failed to provide documentation of the risks versus the benefits of the influenza vaccine and attempted to administer an influenza vaccine to a resident whose RP had not provided informed consent. This was for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #84) reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to meet the requirement of 100 percent (%) staff COVID-19 vaccination rate and implement an effective tracking process for COVID-19 vaccinations when Maintenance Assistant #1 worked without being fully vaccinated and without an exemption. The facility was not in outbreak status and had no positive cases of COVID-19 among residents. The facility's community transmission rate was low.
13 fire safety citations on file: 10 on July 26, 2024, 3 on April 27, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 18, 2025 | Fine | $17,345 |
| June 21, 2024 | Fine | $15,646 |
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) | not reported | 3.85 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.62 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.42 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.1% | 49.0% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 45.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 4 |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: The accuracy of the staffing data for this measure could not be validated by CMS.
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 3.54 on weekdays and 3.21 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 44.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.38 in April to June 2025 to 3.44 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 | 3.44 | 0.40 | 3.54 | 3.21 | 44.2% | 0 of 90 | 122 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.14 | 0.40 | 3.25 | 2.84 | 36.6% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.11 | 0.36 | 3.26 | 2.71 | 42.1% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.38 | 0.46 | 3.53 | 3.00 | 40.1% | 0 of 91 | 117 |
| 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 | 18.5 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.2 | 18.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 5.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.4 | 14.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.6 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.0 | 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 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for River Trace Nursing 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 (52.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.7% 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. 121 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 135 eligible stays.
6.4% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 82 eligible stays.
48.8% 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. 84 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. 114 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 114 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 30 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: TAR RIVER LTC GROUP, LLC. CMS links this home to Principle Long Term Care, a group of 40 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson, Dianne | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Boice, Gale | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/05/2018 | |
| Principle Long Term Care, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2011 | |
| Barker, Joetta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/15/2025 | |
| Barker, Joetta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/02/2025 | |
| Boice, Gale | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/05/2018 | |
| Hill, Raymond | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Hill, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Hill, Stephen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Skahill, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2017 |
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.