Carol Woods

750 Weaver Dairy Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-4511
Non profit - Corporation 30 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
95/100
#15 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Carol Woods in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has an impressive Trust Grade of A+, indicating it is an elite facility within the top tier of nursing homes. It ranks #15 out of 417 statewide, placing it comfortably in the top half, and is the best option among the three facilities in Orange County. The facility is on an improving trend, having reduced its issues from five in 2024 to none in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5 out of 5 stars, with only 17% turnover, much lower than the state average, and it boasts more RN coverage than 99% of facilities in the state. However, there have been some concerns noted during inspections, such as expired food items found in the kitchen and failure to ensure licensed nursing coverage for all hours on several days, which could have affected resident care. Overall, while Carol Woods demonstrates strong staffing and quality ratings, families should be aware of the recent issues to ensure they align with their expectations for care.

Trust Score
A+
95/100
In North Carolina
#15/417
Top 3%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
17% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 31 points below North Carolina's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 112 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of North Carolina nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (17%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (17%)

    31 points below North Carolina average of 48%

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

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among North Carolina's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

Jun 2024 5 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 discard expired food items, and label and date food available...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired food items, and label and date food available for resident use in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler and 1 of 4 reach-in coolers in the main kitchen, in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler and in 2 of 3 reach-in coolers in building 4 kitchen, and in 2 of 4 nourishment room refrigerators ([NAME] and blue bird pods' refrigerators) in the 3rd floor of building 4 where the nursing home residents resided. These practices had the potential to affect food and beverages served to the residents. Findings included: a. An initial tour of the kitchen on 6/3/24 at 11:05 am was made with the Dining Services Director, Master Chef and building 4 Kitchen Manager. An initial observation of the walk-in cooler on 6/3/24 at 11:10 am revealed an opened bag of large flour tortillas dated 4/23/24, a large tray of mushrooms labeled Discard 5/28/24, a half block of white cheese wrapped in plastic dated 4/30/24, an opened jar of blue cheese dressing without any date, an opened jar labeled with a marker salad dressing 5/27/24 discard 5/30/24, an opened jar of cheese vinaigrette dressing labeled 5/16/24. b. An initial observation of the reach-in cooler in the main kitchen on 6/3/24 at 11:15 am revealed a medium tray labeled egg salad with a sticker date showing 5/24/24 and discard 5/27/24, and olives in a large tray with a sticker date of 5/24/24 and discard 5/27/24. The Dining Services Director stated they were mislabeled but should have been discarded after 7 days. The Master Chef stated the items in the main kitchen were used in preparation of food for residents in all buildings. c. An initial observation of the building 4 kitchen where the nursing home residents resided on 6/3/24 at 11:45 am revealed the walk-in cooler had an open carton of fat free milk dated 5/20/24, reach-in cooler #1 had a small tray of shredded cheese without any date, reach-in cooler #2 had a small tray of lettuce without any date and an opened bag of turkey slices dated 5/24/24. d. An initial observation of the nourishment refrigerators on 6/5/24 at 2:30 pm revealed an opened lemonade bottle without a date in the [NAME] pod's refrigerator. The blue bird pod's refrigerator had 6 small cups of cottage cheese dated 3/17/24 with a marker and a small, opened bag of loaf bread dated 4/20/24. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 1:51 pm, the Dining Services Director stated the Master, and the Sous Chefs were responsible for checking labels and expiration dates in the main kitchen twice daily. He stated one of them was off during the initial tour and the checks were not done yet. He stated there were a lot of new staff that needed to be trained in food storage. He stated the Kitchen Manager was responsible for checking food items in building 4 and she was new. The nourishment refrigerators were also checked by the Kitchen Manager and her staff. He stated they should be checked twice daily. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 3:24 pm, the Administrator stated she was aware of unlabeled and misdated food items found in the kitchen. She stated they will work on correcting the problem. During a follow up interview on 6/6/24 at 9:59 am, the Administrator stated she expected staff to follow their policy on labeling and storing food items.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow their policy on pneumococcal vaccine and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow their policy on pneumococcal vaccine and offer up to date pneumonia vaccines to 5 of 5 residents reviewed for immunization status (Resident #3, Resident #8, Resident #9, Resident #12, and Resident #123). The findings included: The facility's policy on pneumococcal vaccine last reviewed in July 2023 stated, the administration of the pneumococcal vaccines are made in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation at the time of the vaccination. a. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included rheumatic heart disease, hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #3's immunization record revealed she received PPSV23 on 10/16/14 and PCV13 on 2/1/16. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact, and her pneumococcal immunization was up to date. Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed no information that the Resident or their legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20). During an interview on 6/5/24 at 10:30 am, Resident #3 stated she did not know about pneumonia vaccine. She could not remember if a staff member talked to her about it. b. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, cholecystitis and hypertension. Review of Resident #8's immunization record revealed she received PPSV23 on 4/15/10 and a PCV13 on 10/4/16. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #8 was cognitively intact, and her pneumococcal immunization was up to date. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed no information that the Resident or their legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of PCV20 vaccine. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 10:40 am, Resident denied being offered a pneumonia shot and denied receiving one. c. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, heart attack and stroke. Review of Resident #9's immunization record revealed he received PPSV23 on 1/1/94 and a PCV13 on 4/22/16. Review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #9 was cognitively intact, and his pneumococcal immunization was up to date. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed no information that the Resident or their legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of PCV20 vaccine. Resident #9 was not available for interview. d. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, hypertension and vascular dementia. Review of Resident #12's immunization record revealed he received PPSV23 on 7/13/10 and a PCV13 on 2/26/16. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #12 was severely cognitively impaired, and his pneumococcal immunization was up to date. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed no information that the Resident or their legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of PCV20 vaccine. The resident's representative was not available for interview by telephone during the survey. e. Resident #123 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease and vascular dementia. Review of Resident #123's immunization record revealed he received PPSV23 on 7/7/10 and a PCV13 on 4/3/15. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #123 was cognitively intact, and his pneumococcal immunization was up to date. Review of Resident #123's medical record revealed no information that the Resident or their legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of PCV20 vaccine. Resident #123 preferred not to be interviewed during the survey. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 3:50 pm, his representative stated she did not get any information on the update pneumonia vaccine for the resident. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 2:24 pm, the Infection Preventionist stated she thought the residents did not need any more pneumococcal vaccines after they received the PPSV23. She stated she would check the current guidelines. During a follow up interview on 6/6/24 at 8:46 am, the Infection Preventionist stated she would discuss the current guidelines for the pneumococcal vaccine with the Medical Director. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:03 am, the Director of Nursing stated she expected staff to follow the facility's policy, current guidelines and immunization best practices for the residents.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to submit accurate payroll data, regarding 24-hour licenses nurse coverage, for 9 of 9 days reviewed (10/14/23, 10/28,23, 11/25/23, 11/26...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to submit accurate payroll data, regarding 24-hour licenses nurse coverage, for 9 of 9 days reviewed (10/14/23, 10/28,23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, 12/9/23, 12/16/23, 12/17/23, 12/23/23, 12/31/23) of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the 1st quarter in fiscal year 2024. Findings included: The CMS submission report, PBJ Final File Validation Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (October 1 to December 31) showed the facility failed to have Licensed Nursing Coverage, 24 hours out of 24 hours for the days of 10/14/23, 10/28/23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, 12/9/23, 12/16/23, 12/17/23, 12/23/23, and 12/31/23. Posted Nurse Staffing, nurse schedules, and the nursing staff's timecards for 10/14/23, 10/28,23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, 12/9/23, 12/16/23, 12/17/23, 12/23/23, and 12/31/23 were reviewed and revealed there was 24-hour licensed nursing coverage for the 1st quarter of Fiscal Year 2024. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/6/24 at 11:35am she revealed that there was 24-hour licensed nursing staff working on 10/14/23, 10/28,23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, 12/9/23, 12/16/23, 12/17/23, 12/23/23, and 12/31/23 but that the office must have not submitted the information incorrectly.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were transmitted t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were transmitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) database (Resident #1) and failed to electronically transmit to the Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) System, a 5 day assessment within 14 days of the completion date (Resident #16) for 2 of 9 residents reviewed for resident assessment. Findings Included: a.Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. The discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was signed as completed on 3/8/24. The facility's electronic medical record indicated the assessment had been transmitted and accepted to the CMS database. Review of the CMS database on 6/5/24 did not indicate this assessment had been accepted. An interview was conducted on 6/6/24 at 10:22 AM with MDS Nurse #1. She indicated that she completed the assessment but was not sure why this was not transmitted and accepted correctly but she had been behind from being off the month of January 2024. An interview was conducted on 6/5/24 at 1:57 PM with the Director of Nursing. She indicated that she is not sure why the MDS Nurse #1 did not confirm that the assessment had been transmitted and accepted and that all assessments should be completed and submitted within the required timeframes. b.Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE]. A review of Resident #16 5-day assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/18/24 was signed as completed on 2/1/24. The assessment was submitted to the QIES ASAP system on 3/13/24. An interview was conducted on 6/5/24 at 1:57 PM with the Director of Nursing. She indicated that she is not sure why the MDS Nurse #1 did not confirm that the assessment had been transmitted and that all assessments should be completed and submitted within the required timeframes. An interview was conducted on 6/6/24 at 10:22 AM with MDS Nurse #1. She indicated that she completed the assessment, but it was rejected and had to be resubmitted. She further revealed that she did not know why this was done late but that and that she had been behind from being off the month of January 2024.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan in the area of falls for Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan in the area of falls for Resident # 2. This was for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction and unsteadiness of feet. Resident #2's active care plan dated 10/24/23 revealed a focus that read resident was at risk for falls related to weakness and fall history. The care plan was initiated on 1/5/22. The active care plan has had no other updates or revisions since 10/24/23. A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #2 was cognitively impaired and no falls since admission. A review of the nurse's progress note dated 4/2/24 and authored by Nurse #1, revealed Resident # 2 had attempted to go to the bathroom without calling for staff assistance and fell in her room. The progress note further revealed staff implemented more frequent checks on Resident #2 due to the possibility of her forgetting to call for staff assistance again. An interview was conducted on 06/05/24 at 12:07 PM with MDS Nurse #1. She indicated that Resident #2's falls care plan had not been reviewed or revised since 10/24/23 due to an oversight and the care plan should have been updated to reflect the fall that occurred in the facility. An interview was conducted on 6/5/24 at 12:39 PM with the Director of Nursing. She revealed that she does not know why Resident #2's falls care plan had not been reviewed or revised since 10/24/23 but the care plan should have been reviewed and revised to reflect the fall in the facility and that each care plan should be reviewed and or revised every 92 days and as needed.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Basedonrecordreviewandstaffinterviews thefacilityfailedtoprovidetheCentersforMedicare& MedicaidServices(CMS NoticeofMedicareNonCoverageLetter(NOMNC CMS10123 form for1 of3 sampledresidentsreviewedforbe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Basedonrecordreviewandstaffinterviews thefacilityfailedtoprovidetheCentersforMedicare& MedicaidServices(CMS NoticeofMedicareNonCoverageLetter(NOMNC CMS10123 form for1 of3 sampledresidentsreviewedforbeneficiaryprotectionnotificationreview(Resident# 73). Findingsincluded Resident# 73 wasadmitted tothefacilityon8/10/22 withdiagnosesthatincludedcerebralinfarctionduetothrombosisofleftvertebralartery Type2 diabetesmellituswithhyperglycemia andmuscleweaknessandabnormalitiesofgait Theresidentwasdischarged on10/31/22. AreviewoftheSkilledNursingBeneficiaryProtectionNotificationReviewformrevealedResident#73'sMedicarePartAservicesstartedon8/10/22 andthelastcovereddaywas10/31/22. TheformfurtherrevealedthatthefacilityinitiatedthedischargefromMedicarePartAserviceswhenbenefitdayswerenotyetexhausted Thedischargewasplannedbetweenthecareteamandtheresident ThemedicalrecordreviewfurtherrevealedthattheNOMNCletterwhichexplainedtheMedicareAcoverageforskilledserviceswasnotissuedtotheResident#47 ortheresidentsrepresentative Duringaninterviewon2/9/23 at10.08 AM theAccountingmanagerstatedtheresidentsbenefitshadnotbeenexhaustedandtheresidentwasnotprovidedtheNOMNCformasitwasanoversightduetostaffissue Theaccountingmanagerfurtherstatedshewasnotintheofficethatweekandthestaffresponsiblejustquittheorganizationandhenceitwasnotcompleted On2/8/23 at2:39 PManinterviewwasconductedwiththeAdministratorandDirectorofNursing(DON. TheDONstatedtheresidentpriortoherdischargewenthomeonaLeaveofAbsence(LOA. TheDONfurtherstateduponreturntothefacilitytheresidenthadinitiatedthedischargeprocess Careteamandtherapyagreedtheresidenthadmethergoalsandsafedischargeprocesswasputinplace TheAdministratorstateditwasmoreresidentinitiateddischargeversusbenefitexhaustionorreductionintheresidentsservices TheAdministratorstatedastheresidentinitiatedthedischarge theNOMNCwasnotprovidedtotheresident Itwasoverlookedbystaff
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility's quality assurance (QA) process failed to implement, monitor, and revise as needed the action plan developed for the recertification surveys ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility's quality assurance (QA) process failed to implement, monitor, and revise as needed the action plan developed for the recertification surveys dated 10/7/21 in order to achieve and sustain compliance. This was for recited deficiency on a recertification survey on 2/9/23. The deficiency was in the area of Medicaid/Medicare Coverage/Liability Notice. The continued failure during one federal survey of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective quality assurance program. The findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F582 - Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage Letter (NOMNC, CMS-10123 form) for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review (Resident # 73). During the previous recertification survey on 10/7/21, the facility failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter for discharge from Medicare Part A services for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review. An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 2/09/23 at 2:54 PM. The Administrator stated the Quality Assurance (QA) committee does 1) identifies areas of concern, 2) does a root cause analysis, 3) develops a plan, audits, and monitors that plan and 4) discusses the outcome. System change and addition task would put in place as needed to resolve the issue. The Administrator further stated that for the last citation the performance improvement plan was in place. The old plan would be revisited and analyzed to see where the failures, and where the breakdown happened. The root cause would be revisited and new interventions, monitoring tools would be put in place. Audit / education would be completed as needed. The new process will be put in place as a plan of correction to ensure compliance. The team would continuously monitor until the deficient area concerns have been resolved. The Administrator indicated that all citations were discussed in the QAA meeting including any repeat citation.
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+ (95/100). 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.
  • • 17% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 31 points below North Carolina's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
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 Carol Woods's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Carol Woods 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 Carol Woods Staffed?

CMS rates Carol Woods's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 17%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Carol Woods?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at Carol Woods during 2023 to 2024. These included: 5 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Carol Woods?

Carol Woods is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 30 certified beds and approximately 22 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

How Does Carol Woods Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Carol Woods's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (17%) 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 Carol Woods?

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 Carol Woods Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Carol Woods 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 Carol Woods Stick Around?

Staff at Carol Woods tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 17%, the facility is 29 percentage points below the North Carolina average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 10%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Carol Woods Ever Fined?

Carol Woods 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 Carol Woods on Any Federal Watch List?

Carol Woods 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.