Aston Park Health Care Center

380 Brevard Road, Asheville, NC 28806 (828) 253-4437
Non profit - Corporation 120 Beds LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
70/100
#145 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Aston Park Health Care Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option, but not without its flaws. In North Carolina, it ranks #145 out of 417 facilities, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 19 in Buncombe County, meaning only six local options are better. However, the facility is currently worsening, with reported issues increasing from one in 2023 to two in 2025. Staffing is a concern with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate is at 35%, which is better than the state average of 49%. Notably, there have been no fines, which is a positive aspect. However, recent inspections revealed serious issues, such as a staff member transferring a resident who required two-person assistance by themselves, which led to a seizure, and failures in maintaining kitchen hygiene, potentially putting residents' health at risk. Overall, while there are strengths in turnover and no fines, the facility's staffing issues and recent incidents are concerning for families considering care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
B
70/100
In North Carolina
#145/417
Top 34%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% 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
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below North Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near North Carolina average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to clean and maintain 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerator in the main ki...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to clean and maintain 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerator in the main kitchen free from debris. The facility also failed to refrigerate opened jelly containers stored in the dry food storage area, remove expired thickened beverages from the dry food storage area and expired thickened beverage from a dining area refrigerator ([NAME] dining room). This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings Included: a. On 2/17/25 at 9:46 AM an observation with the Dietary manager (DM) in the kitchen's walk-in refrigerator found a whiteish in color and fuzzy in appearance substance on the floor beneath the food storage rack on the left side of the refrigerator. The substance was concentrated in some areas and speckled in other areas on the floor and on the baseboard spanning the length of the wall. Further observation of the walk-in refrigerator found the ceiling area near the circulatory fan to contain grey fluffy matter. The grey matter was crumbly to touch. The DM stated during the observation that he mopped the refrigerator 2 times daily and had not noticed the substance under the storage rack and had overlooked the ceiling. b. On 2/17/25 at 9:50 AM an observation of the kitchen's dry food storage area with the DM found 2 opened jars of jelly located on the second shelf of the storage rack. The jelly jars did not contain an opened date, and the manufacturers label read refrigerate after opening. The observation also found one un-opened 48 ounce container of thickened beverage with an expiration date of 10/3/24 stored on the shelf. The DM removed the 2 jelly jars and thickened beverage container from the shelf. The DM stated during the observation he did not know how long the opened jelly jars had been on the shelf and stated they should have been refrigerated after they were opened. The DM also said the thickened beverage container was overlooked and that the dry food storage area was checked weekly on food delivery days. c. On 2/17/25 at 9:57 AM an observation of the [NAME] dining room refrigerator found one container of opened thickened beverage with an expiration date of 10/3/24. The DM stated during the observation the refrigerator was stocked regularly each day by the dietary staff and the container had been overlooked. The Administrator stated on 2/20/25 at 9:18 AM the facility had switched from using and purchasing 48 oz thickened beverage containers to individual sized containers the previous summer and fall. The 48 oz thickened beverage containers should have been removed at that time. The Administrator also said the walk-in refrigerator was mopped 2 times each day by the DM, and that all areas of the walk-in refrigerator should have been cleaned.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure daily nurse staffing sheets were filled out completely for 9 of 110 days reviewed during the period 10/31/24 through 2/17/25....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure daily nurse staffing sheets were filled out completely for 9 of 110 days reviewed during the period 10/31/24 through 2/17/25. Findings included: Review of the facility's nursing daily staffing sheets for 10/31/24-2/17/25 revealed the following: On 10/31/24 the total number of Nursing Assistants (NAs) and total number of NA hours worked was blank for the evening shift (3:00 PM-11:00 PM). On 11/4/24 the total number for each staff discipline (Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), NAs) and total hours worked for each staff discipline for the evening and night shift (11:00 PM-7:00 AM) were blank. On 11/5/24 the total number for each staff discipline and total hours worked for each staff discipline for the evening and night shift were blank. On 12/25/24 the census was blank. On 1/3/25 the census was blank. On 1/5/25 the total number for each staff discipline and total hours worked for each staff discipline for the evening and night shift were blank. On 1/15/25 the total hours worked for each staff discipline for the evening and night shift were blank. On 1/23/25 the total number for each staff discipline and total hours worked for each staff discipline for the evening and night shift were blank. On 2/1/25 the total number of NA's and total number of NA hours was blank for the night shift. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 2/20/25 at 11:36 AM. The Administrator verbalized the nursing daily staffing sheet for posted staffing was supposed to be completed at the beginning of each shift by the Nurse Supervisor. She stated the total number of staff for each discipline and the total number of hours worked by each discipline was supposed to be filled out for every shift. She said the census was also supposed to be completed on the nursing daily staffing sheet. The Administrator stated the prior Director of Nursing (DON) had left in November 2024. She reported the prior DON had reviewed the daily staffing sheets to ensure they were completed correctly. She explained there had been a gap between when the prior DON left in November 2024 and when the new DON started at the end of January 2025. She said reviewing the daily staffing sheets to ensure they were completed had been missed during the gap between when the prior DON left the new DON had started. An interview was conducted with the DON on 2/20/25 at 11:46 AM. The DON stated the nursing daily staffing sheet was supposed to be completed by the Nurse Supervisor at the beginning of each shift. She stated the daily staffing sheet should be completed and include the total number of staff for each discipline for each shift, total hours worked for each discipline for each shift, and the census.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to follow a resident's care plan when transferri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to follow a resident's care plan when transferring 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #307). Findings included: Resident # 307 was admitted into the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of: non- Alzheimer's dementia with mood disturbance, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and expired on [DATE]. Resident #307's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance with her bed mobility, toilet use and transfers. A review of Resident #307's most recent comprehensive care plan dated [DATE] stated two-person assistance with transfers. A review of Nurse #2 progress notes dated [DATE] at 8:04 AM revealed that at 6:00 AM she was alerted Resident #307 had a seizure episode during a transfer. A telephone interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant #1 on [DATE] at 7:45 AM who relayed that she had used a sit-to-stand lift by herself to take Resident #307 to the restroom on [DATE], she stated that during the transfer Resident # 307 became red in the face and would not respond when Nurse Assistant #1 called her name. Nurse Assistant #1 then stated that she laid Resident #307's head and upper body on the bed but could not get her legs on the bed because Resident #307 was so stiff, Nurse Assistant #1 then yelled for help and the nurse came into the room. Nurse Assistant #1 also revealed that at no time did Resident #307 fall either from the lift or off the bed. Nursing Assistant #1 indicated that Resident # 307 had become too heavy to transfer so she used the assist lift for the transfer. Nurse Assistant #1 also revealed that she knew that Resident # 307's care plan did not include using a sit-to-stand lift for transfers and had indicated two-person extensive assist with all transfers. An interview with the Director of Nursing on [DATE], at 2:00 PM revealed that during the transfer on [DATE] it appeared that Resident #307 had seizure like activity. The Director of Nursing further revealed that at the time of the incident that the facility investigation concluded Resident #307 had not been transferred by Nurse Assistant #1 in accordance with her care plan. An interview with the Administrator on [DATE], at 2:45 PM revealed that Nursing Assistant #1 did not transfer Resident #307 in accordance with the care plan. She further revealed that the facility had assessed Resident #307 and contacted the physician regarding her pain and seizure activity. When the facility had found out a plan of correction was established. The plan of correction initiated on [DATE] included: Root cause analysis: Resident's care plan stated 2-person assist with transfers. Certified Nursing Assistant transferred resident with a sit to stand lift with one person assist. Corrective Action: Certified Nursing Assistant was counseled and re-educated on facility transfer policy and following the care plan for transfers was completed on [DATE]. Corrective Action for Potential Deficient Practice: All current resident's care plans checked to assure they match the resident profiles was completed on [DATE]. Systematic Changes: Retraining of all staff in the facilities transfer policy, following the Resident's profile for all transfers was completed on [DATE]. Monitor Plan of Facility: The Staff Development Coordinator or designee will monitor transfers to ensure correct techniques and the transfer matches the plan of care and report to the facilities Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for a 3-month period and then randomly thereafter to ensure compliance. Review of the plan of correction was completed on [DATE]. The facility's plan of correction was validated by observations of transfers during the survey that revealed transfers with and without mechanical lifts were completed by the staff in accordance with the care plan and resident profiles. Staff interviews were completed to verify they had received training on resident transfer status. And a review of staff training material regarding the proper procedures for transfers and audits completed by the facility was completed.
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
  • • 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.
  • • 35% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • No major red flags. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 70/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Aston Park Health Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Aston Park Health Care Center an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Aston Park Health Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Aston Park Health Care Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Aston Park Health Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at Aston Park Health Care Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Aston Park Health Care Center?

Aston Park Health Care Center is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Asheville, North Carolina.

How Does Aston Park Health Care Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Aston Park Health Care Center's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aston Park Health Care Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Aston Park Health Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Aston Park Health Care Center 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 3-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 Aston Park Health Care Center Stick Around?

Aston Park Health Care Center has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Aston Park Health Care Center Ever Fined?

Aston Park Health Care Center 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 Aston Park Health Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Aston Park Health Care Center 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.