Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc

500 Mountain Top Drive, Asheboro, NC 27203 (336) 625-2074
For profit - Individual 96 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#19 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: October 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc has received a Trust Grade of A, which indicates it is an excellent facility highly recommended for care. Ranked #19 out of 417 nursing homes in North Carolina, they are in the top half, and #2 out of 6 in Randolph County, meaning only one local option is better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2021 to 2 in 2024. Staffing is generally a strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average; however, RN coverage is a concern as it is lower than 92% of North Carolina facilities. Notably, there were incidents involving the misappropriation of prescribed narcotic medications for residents and a failure to post safety signage for residents using oxygen, highlighting some areas of serious concern despite the overall positive ratings.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In North Carolina
#19/417
Top 4%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 1 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (38%)

    10 points below North Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signage outside of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signage outside of resident rooms that indicated the use of oxygen for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Residents #15 and #34). This practice had the potential to affect other residents receiving supplemental oxygen. The findings included: a. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A review of Resident #15's physician orders dated 8/3/22 revealed an order for oxygen to be administered continuously via nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute (l/min). A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #15 was coded for receiving oxygen. Observations on 9/30/24 at 11:34 AM, 10/1/24 at 1:56 PM, and 10/2/24 at 8:17 AM revealed Resident #15 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 2 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at Resident #15's room to indicate oxygen was in use during the observations. b. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation, acute with chronic respiratory failure with risk of decline, and pneumonia. Resident #34 had a physician's order dated 6/12/24 for oxygen administered at 2 liters per minute by nasal cannula. Review of Resident #34's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired with no mood or behavioral disturbances. Resident #34 was coded for receiving oxygen. Observations conducted on 10/1/24 at 9:12 AM, 10/2/24 at 8:17 AM, and 10/2/24 at 11:02 AM revealed there was no cautionary signage at Resident #34's room indicating oxygen was in use. Resident #34 was in her room using oxygen delivered by nasal cannula during the observation times. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 10/02/24 at 11:02 AM. She stated she had not seen any oxygen in use signs posted in the facility, and she did not recall placing one in any resident's room. Nurse #1 stated that since the facility was smoke free, she didn't think they needed oxygen in use signage. She stated that the staff educated family members regarding no smoking around oxygen. On 10/2/24 at 1:55 PM an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She verbalized the facility had 11 total residents using oxygen. The DON stated the facility did not use oxygen signage. She further stated that since the building was smoke-free she didn't think the facility was required to use individual no smoking signs. An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 10/2/24 at 2:04 PM. He stated it was illegal for indoor smoking in North Carolina facilities. He stated since the facility was smoke-free it was unnecessary to post signs of no smoking in the residents' rooms. He stated he had posted no smoking signage at the facility's entrance.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from misa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from misappropriation of narcotic medications (oxycodone and hydromorphone) prescribed to treat pain for 6 of 6 residents (Residents #66, 282, 284, 281 and #280) reviewed for misappropriation of property. The findings included: 1a. Resident #66 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of the right hip. Resident #66's physician orders included an order dated 04/09/24 for oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Resident #66's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24, the PRN oxycodone was documented as administered 4 times by Nurse #1. The dates of administration were: 07/22/24, 07/24/24, 07/27/24 and 07/28/24. The pharmacy-controlled drug record sheet for Resident #66 revealed that PRN oxycodone was signed out 9 times by Nurse #1 between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24. The dates signed out were once on 07/22/24, twice on 07/23/24, three times on 07/27/24, and three times on 07/28/24. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident # 66's cognition was moderately impaired. During the interview of Resident #66 on 10/01/24 at 04:42 PM the resident denied she asked for pain medications from Nurse #1 and did not receive pain medications. Resident #66 denied having pain. 1b. Resident #283 was admitted to facility on 05/24/24 with diagnoses that included pain disorder and pain in right toe. Resident #283's physician's orders included an order dated 07/15/24 for oxycodone 5 mg by mouth, 1 tablet every 6 hours PRN for pain. The medical record indicated Resident #283 resided in the facility 7/17/24 through 7/28/24. Resident #283's MAR revealed that between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24 Nurse #1 documented administration of the PRN oxycodone two times. The dates of administration were 07/22/24 and 07/24/24. Resident #283's pharmacy-controlled drug record sheet revealed that PRN oxycodone was signed out 12 times by Nurse #1 between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24. The dates signed out were twice on 07/22/24, once on 07/23/24, three times on 07/24/24, three times on 07/27/24, and three times on 07/28/24. 1c. Resident #282 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of the neck of the right femur. Resident #282's physician's orders included an order dated 07/23/24 for hydromorphone 2 mg by mouth every 4 hours PRN for pain. The medical record indicated that the resident resided in the facility from [DATE] to 07/28/24. Resident #282's MAR revealed that between 07/23/24 to 07/28/24, hydromorphone was documented as administered once by Nurse #1 on 07/27/24. The pharmacy-controlled drug record sheet for Resident #282 revealed that hydromorphone was signed out 9 times by Nurse #1 between 07/23/24 to 07/28/24. The dates signed out were: one time on 07/24/24, four times on 07/27/24, and four times on 07/28/24. 1d. Resident #284 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include pain in right knee and right foot. Resident #284's physician's orders included an order dated 07/09/24 for oxycodone 5 mg by mouth, 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours PRN for moderate to severe pain. The medical record indicated Resident #284 resided in the facility 7/17/24 through 7/28/24. Resident #284's MAR revealed that between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24, oxycodone 5 mg was documented as administered one time by Nurse #1 on 07/27/24. The pharmacy-controlled record for Resident #284 revealed that oxycodone was signed out 6 times between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24 by Nurse #1. The dates oxycodone was signed out were twice on 07/23/24, 07/24/24, twice on 07/27/24, and on 07/28/24. 1e. Resident #281 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included arthritis in right knee and pain in right and left knee. Resident #281's physician orders included an order dated 07/11/24 for oxycodone 5 mg one tablet by mouth every 6 hours PRN for moderate to severe pain. The medical record indicated Resident #281 resided in the facility 7/17/24 through 7/28/24. Resident 281's MAR revealed that oxycodone was documented as administered 2 times between 07/17/24 to 07/28/24 by Nurse #1. The dates of administration were 07/19/24 and 07/27/24. The pharmacy-controlled drug record revealed that oxycodone was signed out 5 times by Nurse #1 between 07/17/24 and 07/28/24. The dates oxycodone was signed out were 07/19/24, 07/22/24, 07/24/24, 07/27/24 and 07/28/24. 1f. Resident #280 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of left femur. Resident #280's physician order included an order dated 06/30/24 for oxycodone 5 mg by mouth every 4 hours PRN for pain. The medical record indicated Resident #280 resided in the facility 7/17/24 through 7/28/24. Resident #280's MAR revealed that from 07/17/24 to 07/28/24 oxycodone was documented as administered 2 times by Nurse #1. The dates of administration were 07/22/24 and 07/28/24. The pharmacy-controlled drug record for Resident #280 revealed that oxycodone was signed out 6 times by Nurse #1 between 07/17/24 and 07/28/24. The dates oxycodone was signed out were 07/22/24, 07/23/24, 07/24/24, twice on 07/27/24, and 07/28/24. On 10/02/24 at 10:34 AM, a telephone interview with Nurse #2 revealed on 07/28/24 she arrived and counted the narcotics in medication carts with Nurse #1. On the 700-hall cart, 4 cards of narcotics did not reconcile with the pharmacy-controlled drug record. Nurse #2 stated that she then counted the narcotics on the 600-hall cart with Nurse #1. This count revealed that the medications were reconciled, but there were medication cards that had tape on the back. She reported that she could tell that something was off. She called the Director of Nurses (DON) and then the Administrator. On 10/02/24 at 10:40 AM, a telephone interview with Nurse #1 was attempted and unsuccessful. On 10/02/24 at 9:13 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON who reported that on the night of 07/28/24, Nurse #2 reported that Nurse #1 was different and there was concern about medication discrepancy, the Administrator was called. The DON indicated the Administrator came in and was in the facility while Nurse #1 completed her documentation. Nurse #1 was sent home until further notice. The DON reported she called Nurse #1 to come in the next day. During the interview with the Administrator in the conference room, Nurse #1 admitted that she diverted the medications and that she had a problem. Law enforcement was called, and Nurse #1 was arrested. The Director of Operations reported that this Nurse #1 had no previous allegations with the Board of Nursing. On 10/02/24 at 10:02 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Operations and the Administrator. The Administrator reported that Nurse #1 had been in orientation for 9 days. The first night Nurse #1 had worked independently with access to the medication cart was 07/28/24. The Administrator reported that he got a call on 07/28/24 from Nurse #2 about medication discrepancy concerns. He stated he arrived at the facility at midnight and Nurse #1 was still on-site. He observed Nurse #1 had completed her documentation, and he informed Nurse #1 to go home until further notice. The Administrator and Director of Operations reported that they audited all the MARs and noted diversion in the medication carts for 600 and 700 halls only with Nurse #1. After the audit of the MAR monitoring of the MARs began. The facility provided the following action plan with a completion date of 07/29/24: 1.Corrective action for residents(s) affected by the alleged deficient practice: On 07/29/24, termination of Nurse #1, reporting the nurse to law enforcement, reporting the misappropriation to the state agency, reporting the nurse to the state board of nursing. On 07/29/24, Director of Operations and Administrator assessed if affected residents had any issues during their stay with receiving either the scheduled or PRN pain medications. 2.Corrective action for residents (s) with the potential to be affected by the alleged deficient practice: A full audit of all narcotic sheets of all residents was completed on 07/29/24 to ensure no other discrepancies or trends were noted with any other nurses signing out medications. 3.Measures/Systemic changes to prevent recurrence of deficient practice: On 07/29/2024 at approximately 04:30 PM, education to all nurses and med-aides was started by the DON related to abuse (specifically diversion of drugs/misappropriation), reporting of concerns/abuse, as well as the narcotic count process. All nurses on the 3rd shift (11:00 PM- 07:00 AM) of 07/29/24 were educated and no other nurse was allowed to work on going until being educated. On 7/29/24 a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting was held immediately after discovering the area of concern with appropriate QAPI members, to include Administrator, Director of Operations, Director of Nursing, and Nurse Managers. QAPI members discussed and approved the plan of correction as written. QAPI members agreed to monitor this plan in the monthly meeting. Should any areas of concern arise between meetings, the appropriate committee members will address timely and accordingly. 4.Monitoring procedure was started on 7/29/24 to ensure that the plan of correction is effective, and that specific deficiency cited remains corrected and sustained: To help ensure this plan of correction remains effective, the Director of Operations or designees will review 5 narcotic sheets per week X4 weeks to ensure the medication sign outs for the previous week match the MAR for the residents. Should the residents be alert and oriented, the Director of Operations or designee will also interview that resident and ensure they receive the medication as requested on the dates it was documented. Should substantial compliance continue to be found, this monitoring tool will be reduced to 5 sheets per month until the next recertification survey. This Plan of Correction will be followed and reviewed by the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee 8/14/24 who will reassess the need for continuation of this monitoring tool. This Plan of Correction will be followed and reviewed by the QAPI committee and areas of concern will be addressed immediately by the appropriate members. Correction Date was 7/29/24.
Nov 2021 1 deficiency
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete the daily nurse staffing information posting for 14 of 30 days reviewed (October 1 - November 1, 2021). Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete the daily nurse staffing information posting for 14 of 30 days reviewed (October 1 - November 1, 2021). Findings included: The daily schedule and the daily nurse staffing information posting were reviewed from October 1, 2021 through November 1, 2021. The nurse staffing information posting did not match the daily schedule for the licensed nurses on the following dates: 10/1/21 (3rd shift) - the daily schedule has 1 Registered Nurse (RN) and 1 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) while the staff posting has 2 LPNs 10/2/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has no RN while the staff posting has 1 RN 10/5/21(1st shift) - the daily schedule has 2 RNs while the staff posting has 1 RN 10/8/21 (1st shift)) - the daily schedule has 1 RN and 5 LPNs while the staff posting has no RN and 4 LPNs 10/11/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 5 LPNs while the staff posting has 4 LPNs 10/13/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 4 LPNs while the staff posting has 3 LPNs 10/15/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 3 LPNs while the staff posting has 2 LPNs 10/18/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 4 LPNs while the staff posting has 3 LPNs 10/20/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 4 LPNs while the staff posting has 3 LPNs 10/22/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 5 LPNs while the staff posting has 4 LPNS 10/25/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 5 LPNs while the staff posting has 4 LPNs 10/26/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 2 RNs while the staff posting has 1 RN 10/27/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 4 LPNs while the staff posting has 3 LPNs 10/29/21 (1st shift) - the daily schedule has 4 LPNs while the staff posting has 3 LPNs The Medical Records staff was interviewed on 11/3/21 at 10:37 AM. The Medical Records staff member stated that she was responsible for completing and for posting the daily nurse staffing information. She reviewed the daily schedule and the daily nurse staffing information and verified that she had completed the daily staff posting incorrectly on 10/1/21 (3rd shift), 10/2/21, 10/5/21, 10/8/21, 10/11/21, 10/13/21, 10/15/21, 10/18/21, 10/20/21, 10/22/21, 10/25/21, 10/26/21, 10/27/21 and 10/29/21 on 1st shift. She reported that the daily staffing form was confusing, and she would check if the form could be revised. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/3/21 at 10:38 AM. The DON reviewed the daily schedule and the daily staff posting form and verified that it could be confusing. She reported that she would revise the form and ensure that the daily staff posting was completed accurately.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in North Carolina.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
  • • Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc Staffed?

CMS rates Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc?

Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 96 certified beds and approximately 86 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Asheboro, North Carolina.

How Does Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc Stick Around?

Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for North Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc Ever Fined?

Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Clapp'S Convalescent Nursing Home Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

Clapp's Convalescent Nursing Home Inc is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.