Stokes County Nursing Home

1570 NC 8 and 89 Highway, Danbury, NC 27016 (336) 593-2831
For profit - Limited Liability company 40 Beds LIFEBRITE HOSPITAL GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
68/100
#197 of 417 in NC
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Stokes County Nursing Home has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #197 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among four nursing homes in Stokes County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from six in 2023 to two in 2024. Staffing is a strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 38%, significantly lower than the state average, suggesting that staff members are familiar with the residents. However, the home has faced some concerns, including a failure to submit staffing data on time and a lack of a documented water management program, which could potentially affect all residents. Additionally, there were issues with expired nutritional supplements not being disposed of properly, indicating some lapses in care practices.

Trust Score
C+
68/100
In North Carolina
#197/417
Top 47%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$5,735 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 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, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near North Carolina average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $5,735

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: LIFEBRITE HOSPITAL GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
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 electronically submit direct care staffing information based on payroll data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit direct care staffing information based on payroll data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as required for quarter three of fiscal year (FY) 2023 (April 1- June 30, 2023). This failure occurred for 1 of 4 quarters reviewed. The findings included: A review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data report from the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) database revealed the facility failed to submit the required PBJ Staffing Data for quarter three of FY 2023. According to CASPER the data was not submitted. On 8/12/24 at 11:03 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated she was responsible for submitting PBJ data to CMS and was aware the PBJ staffing submission was late for quarter three FY 2023. The Administrator further revealed the data was submitted one day late due to staff changes.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a documented water management program for Legionella. Failure to have a water management program had the potential to affect 34...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a documented water management program for Legionella. Failure to have a water management program had the potential to affect 34 of 34 residents in the facility. The findings included: Review of the facility's Emergency Preparedness Plan last reviewed by the facility on 2/17/2024 and Infection Control policies revealed no evidence of a water management program for Legionella. Interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 8/12/24 at 1:13 PM revealed the IP was unsure about any written water management program for Legionella. Interview with the Administrator on 8/12/24 at 1:24 PM revealed it was the IP that oversaw water management. Further interview revealed the Maintenance Director did not have any knowledge in water management. She further revealed there was not a specific Legionella water management program to follow. The Administrator indicated it should have been her overseeing the IP and water management programs. The Administrator explained there should have been a written Legionella water management program to follow.
Mar 2023 6 deficiencies
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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to invite a cognitively intact resident to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to invite a cognitively intact resident to participate in the planning of the resident's care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #31) reviewed for participation in care plans. The findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, hypertension and diabetes. A care plan conference attendance sheet dated 9/25/22 was reviewed and revealed the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse and Activities Director signed as having met and reviewed Resident #31's care plan. There was no documented evidence that the resident was invited to attend or participate in the care plan conference. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 had intact cognition. During an interview with Resident #31 on 3/06/23 at 11:15 AM, he stated he had not been invited to participate in care plan meetings. He said he would like to be included in the care plan process and added, I want to know what is going on with his care. On 3/07/23 at 1:25 PM and 3/8/23 at 10:27 AM, interviews were conducted with the Administrator. She explained that typically, care plan meetings were held on Wednesdays and residents and families were invited to attend. She shared the facility had been without a MDS nurse since December 2022 and there hadn't been an invitation to residents and families to attend care plan meetings. She added a new MDS nurse had been hired and began work on 2/27/23 and the facility would be re-instituting inviting residents and families to care plan meetings.
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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews and resident interviews the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 1 of 1 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews and resident interviews the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 1 of 1 residents (resident #33) by not providing the resident a shower gurney or chair to fit the resident resulting in the resident receiving only bed baths for the last few months. Findings included: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses to include history of stroke, osteoarthritis, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #33 was coded as total dependence with 2 staff members assisting for transfers. The latest weight documented for Resident #33 was 326 pounds on 2/14/23. During an interview with Resident #33 on 3/7/23, he stated that he had only been getting bed baths for several months and that he preferred to have a shower. He stated that the facility didn't have the equipment needed to get him out of bed, onto the shower gurney, and down to the shower room. He added that they tried to get him on the gurney again the other day but it came up on two wheels and the girls were afraid he would fall so they put him back to bed. During an interview with Nurse Aide #1 on 3/8/23, she stated that she and another aide did attempt to get Resident #33 out of bed and onto the shower gurney a couple days ago. She stated that, she was not sure what the weight limit was for the gurney. She stated the gurney came up on two wheels but did not turn over when they placed him on there. She added that she and the other aide decided to put him back in bed for safety reasons which they did without any further incident. She added that Resident #33 had been receiving bed baths for at least 2 months. She was unsure of the exact time period. During an interview with Nurse #1 on 3/8/23, she stated that Resident #33 had gained about 100 pounds over the last year due to poor diet and sedentary lifestyle. She stated he usually only got out of bed for outside doctor appointments and the staff would use a lift. Nurse #1 stated that she was made aware Resident #33 was only receiving bed baths when Nurse Aide #1 advised her of the near accident the prior day. She stated that the resident had gained a lot of weight over the last year and agreed that it was probably unsafe to try to transport him on the shower gurney. She added that they did have a shower chair but she was unsure if that would be suitable for him or not. During an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23, she stated she was unaware that Resident #33 was only receiving bed baths and that he had stated that the facility did not have the equipment that allowed him to use the shower. She stated the weight limit for the shower gurney was 166 kilograms/326 pounds. She stated that they had a shower chair that may have worked for him and added that she planned on involving physical therapy to assess for safety. She stated that every resident had the right to receive a shower based on their preferences.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to complete an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to complete an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment within 366 days of the previous comprehensive assessment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for timely completion of annual MDS assessments. The findings included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, diabetes, congestive heart failure and dementia. The admission MDS assessment with an assessment reference date of 1/5/22 was reviewed and revealed the assessment was signed as completed on 1/9/22. The most recent MDS assessment in the medical record was a quarterly review, completed on 10/3/22. Further review of the medical record demonstrated an annual MDS assessment had not been completed. An interview was completed with the Administrator on 3/8/23 at 2:48 PM. She stated the most recent MDS assessment completed on Resident #18 was a quarterly dated 10/3/22. She explained the resident's next assessment should have been an annual assessment dated [DATE] and it just got missed. The Administrator noticed the assessment had not been completed when she was asked to provide the most recent MDS assessment. She shared the facility had been without a full time MDS nurse since December 2022 and MDS assessments fell behind schedule. The Administrator said she helped with MDS assessments, and there was a part time employee and another nurse who completed MDS assessments as well.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 92 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the previous MDS assessment for 4 of 10 residents (Residents #9, #37, #14 and #2) reviewed for timely completion of MDS assessments. Findings included: 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #9 revealed the last assessment completed was a quarterly assessment completed on 10/12/22. No other MDS assessments had been completed since 10/12/22. 2. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #37 revealed the last assessment completed was a quarterly assessment completed on 10/17/22. No other MDS assessments had been completed since 10/17/22. 3. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #14 revealed the last assessment completed was a quarterly assessment completed on 10/13/22. No other MDS assessments had been completed since 10/13/22. 4. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #37 revealed the last assessment completed was a quarterly assessment completed on 10/30/22. No other MDS assessments had been completed since 10/30/22. During an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23, she stated that the previous MDS nurse left in November 2022 and she was aware that there were several assessments that were overdue. She stated that they had just hired a new MDS nurse and it was her expectation that they would complete all the assessments that were overdue first and then making sure they complete the required MDS assessments in a timely manner going forward.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to dispose of expired nutritional supplements and failed to dispose of expired individually packaged cartons of juice from 1 of 1 nouris...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to dispose of expired nutritional supplements and failed to dispose of expired individually packaged cartons of juice from 1 of 1 nourishment room. The findings included: Observations of the nourishment room on 3/7/23 at 11:42 AM and on 3/8/23 at 10:40 AM revealed the following: a. Nine (2.5 ounce) bottles of a protein supplement on the dry storage rack with a use by date of 1/5/23. b. Six (2.5 ounce) bottles of a protein supplement in the refrigerator with a use by date of 1/5/23. c. Ten (4 ounce) containers of prune juice in the freezer with a best by date of 1/24/23. Dietary Aide #1 was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 10:43 AM, while she stocked the nourishment room. She explained the dietary department checked for expiration dates prior to stocking food and drink items in the nourishment room but had not checked dates for expiration after food and drink items were placed in the nourishment room. During an interview with the Unit Secretary on 3/8/23 at 10:46 AM, she stated dietary staff came to the unit daily and stocked the nourishment room and refrigerator. She thought dietary staff checked dates for expiration when they re-stocked the nourishment room. On 3/8/23 at 10:50 AM an interview was conducted with the Administrator. She had recently removed the protein supplements from the nourishment room since they had expired and didn't know why they were back in the dry storage area and refrigerator. She said the dietary department stocked the nourishment room. She added the night shift nursing staff checked the temperature in the refrigerator each night, and after reviewing information with nursing staff, verified that no one had consistently checked for expired foods in the nourishment room.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interviews and review of the daily nursing staff postings, the facility's daily posting failed to include the number of registered nurses (RNs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs) for 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews and review of the daily nursing staff postings, the facility's daily posting failed to include the number of registered nurses (RNs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs) for 30 of 30 days; failed to include the census for 18 of 30 days; and failed to include nurses and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) actual hours worked for 4 of 30 days. Additionally, the facility failed to complete the daily posting for 10 of 30 days. Findings included: 1. The daily nursing staff postings were reviewed for February 5-March 6, 2023. The postings indicated the name of the nurse who worked each shift but did not include a designation of RN or LPN. On 3/8/23 at 2:38 PM an interview was completed with the Administrator. She explained the third shift nurse completed the daily posting for the entire day, which included all three shifts. She said the posting did not include an option that designated whether the nurse scheduled to work was a RN or LPN. 2. The daily nursing staff postings were reviewed for February 5-March 6, 2023. The postings did not include the facility census on the following dates: 2/5/23-2/6/23, 2/9/23-2/10/23, 2/12/23, 2/14/23, 2/18/23, 2/23/23-2/24/23, 2/28/23-3/1/23, and 3/5/23 (7:00 AM-3:00 PM and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shifts); 2/7/23-2/8/23, 2/13/23, 2/15/23, 3/3/23 and 3/6/23 (3:00 PM-11:00 PM shift). On 3/8/23 at 2:38 PM an interview was completed with the Administrator. She explained the third shift nurse completed the daily posting for the entire day, which included all three shifts. She said the facility needed to designate a charge nurse who completed/updated the daily posting on the 7:00 AM-3:00 PM and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shifts so that it accurately reflected changes in the census and any staffing changes such as call outs or replacements. 3. The daily nursing staff postings were reviewed for February 5-March 6, 2023. The postings did not include actual hours worked for nurses and CNAs on the following dates: 2/7/23-2/8/23 and 3/3/23 (3:00-11:00 PM shift), and 2/12/23 (7:00 AM-3:00 PM and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shifts). On 3/8/23 at 2:38 PM an interview was completed with the Administrator. She explained the third shift nurse completed the daily posting for the entire day, which included all three shifts. She said the facility needed to designate a charge nurse who completed/updated the daily posting on the 7:00 AM-3:00 PM and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shifts so that it accurately reflected changes in the census and any staffing changes such as call outs or replacements. 4. The daily nursing staff postings were reviewed for February 5-March 6, 2023. No posting was completed for the following dates: 2/16/23-2/17/23, 2/19/23, 2/21/23-2/22/23, 2/25/23-2/27/23, 3/2/23 and 3/4/23. On 3/8/23 at 2:38 PM an interview was completed with the Administrator. She explained the third shift nurse completed the daily posting for the entire day, which included all three shifts. She said the facility needed to designate a charge nurse who completed/updated the daily posting on the 7:00 AM-3:00 PM and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shifts so that it accurately reflected changes in the census and any staffing changes such as call outs or replacements.
Jul 2021 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to, (a) provide a clean bedside commode that was causing a urine...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to, (a) provide a clean bedside commode that was causing a urine odor for 1 of 20 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]), (b) failed to repair holes exposing drywall in resident rooms for 2 of 20 resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) and, (c) failed to maintain walls at exit doors in good repair for 1 of 2 halls (North hall). The findings included: a. An observation on 7/8/21 at 9:36 AM revealed a bedside commode in room [ROOM NUMBER] that was soiled with urine on the top of the lid, under the lid and the bucket. The commode lid had yellowish brown stains on it. The entire base of the bedside commode was covered with erosion. A strong urine odor was observed in the room. An observation on 7/9/21 at 11:53 AM revealed the urine odor remained in room [ROOM NUMBER] and the bedside commode remained stained. On 7/9/21 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with Housekeeper #1. She stated it was the nursing assistant ' s responsibility to clean the bedside commodes. She added the bedside commode in room [ROOM NUMBER] was very old and some of the stains would not come off. Using a wet paper towel, Housekeeper #1 observed the surveyor remove some of the urine stains from the bedside commode. On 7/9/21 at 12:04 PM an interview was conducted with Nurse #1. She stated nursing assistants were responsible for cleaning the bedside commodes. She stated if they needed a new one, they went downstairs to get one, but they were hard to come by. On 7/9/21 at 1:11 PM, an interview was conducted with NA #1. She stated the empties the bedside commode for the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] and wipes it clean but, sometimes is unable to get it completely clean. b. An observation on 7/8/21 at 8:59 AM revealed two large holes exposing drywall behind the A bed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. An observation on 7/8/21 at 9:36 AM revealed two holes exposing drywall behind the A bed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/9/21 at 2:30 PM, Housekeeper #2 was interviewed. She stated the holes in the wall behind the bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] were there for a little while and she recalled letting her supervisor know. She stated she wrote things down when she found things that needed to be repaired in the resident rooms. On 7/9/21 at 1:18 PM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. He stated he has submitted 4 different options to the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Committee regarding renovating rooms and correcting things like holes in the walls. He further stated it has been discussed frequently but budget concerns prevent action. The maintenance director observed the holes in room [ROOM NUMBER] and stated he was unaware of the holes in the room. He added he and his assistant conduct daily room rounds. c. An observation on 7/9/21 at 2:27 PM revealed the wall near the North hall exit door had areas of exposed drywall where the baseboard was pulled away from the wall. There was areas of cracked drywall up the right and left sides of the wall beside the door.
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions for a resident a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions for a resident at risk for pressure ulcers for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #18). The findings included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus. An annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had severely impaired cognition. Resident #18 required total assistance of 2 people with bed mobility and transfers and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. He had a risk for pressure ulcers but had no current pressure ulcers and utilized a pressure relieving device to his bed. The Care Area Assessment indicated pressure ulcers would be care planned. The care plan, updated on 5/27/21, revealed a problem for pressure ulcer risk. An intervention included heel protectors while in bed. An assessment used to determine pressure ulcer risk dated 5/26/21 revealed Resident #18 was at high risk for developing pressure ulcers. A review of Resident #18 ' s physician ' s orders revealed an order for heel protectors while in bed. An observation on 7/8/21 at 9:36 AM revealed Resident #18 lying in bed with his heels directly on the mattress. There were not heel protectors on Resident #18. An observation on 7/9/21 at 11:53 AM revealed Resident #18 lying in bed with his heels directly on the mattress. There were not heel protectors on Resident #18. On 7/9/21 at 1:57 PM, an interview was conducted with NA #1. NA #1 was asked by the surveyor where Resident #18 ' s heel protectors were. NA #1 was observed looking around Resident #18 ' s room and inside his drawers and closet. NA #1 was unable to locate Resident #18 ' s heel protectors. She stated she did not know where they were, and they may have gone to the laundry and not returned to Resident #18 ' s room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record in the area of medicatio...

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 maintain an accurate medical record in the area of medications for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of failure to thrive, dementia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis and polyneuropathy. A review of Resident #32 ' s physician ' s orders for May 2021 revealed Resident #32 was receiving the following medications: Norvasc 5 milligrams daily, enteric coated aspirin 81 milligrams daily, celexa 10 milligrams daily, Plavix 75 milligrams daily for 3 months, colace 100 milligrams daily, ferrous sulfate 325 milligrams daily, losartan 100 milligrams daily, metformin 500 milligrams every morning, myretriq 50 milligrams daily, naproxen 250 milligrams daily, Prilosec 20 milligrams daily, vitamin b-12 1,000 micrograms daily, vitamin d2 50,000 units weekly, Tylenol 1,000 milligrams three times a day, Aricept 10 milligrams at bedtime, melatonin 3 milligrams at bedtime, metformin 1,000 milligrams each evening, temazepam 15 milligrams at bedtime, loperamide 2 milligrams as needed, ultram 50 milligrams every 6 hours as needed. A monthly physician ' s progress note dated 5/26/21 revealed Resident #32 ' s current medications were listed as follows: Aricept 10 milligrams at bedtime, myrbetriq 50 milligrams daily, Wellbutrin SR 150 milligrams every 12 hours, tylenol 500 milligrams every 6 hours as needed, melatonin 5 milligrams at bedtime, aspirin enteric coated 81 milligrams daily, colace 100 milligrams daily, zantac 300 milligrams twice a day, carafate 1 gram three times a day before meals, vitamin b-12 1,000 milligrams daily, Xanax 0.25 milligrams daily as needed, metformin 500 milligrams at noon and supper, cozaar 100 milligrams daily, Lipitor 80 milligrams half tablet every other day, Fosamax 70 milligrams weekly, Norvasc 5 milligrams daily, tramadol 50 milligrams as needed, vitamin d 3 1.25 milligrams weekly, ambien 5 milligrams at bedtime as needed, Plavix 75 milligrams daily, nicotine 14milligrams/24 hour patch every 24 hours, albuterol sulfate 108 micrograms aerosol powder 2 puffs as needed, Zofran 8 milligrams twice a day as needed. An acute physician ' s progress note dated 6/16/21 revealed no changes in the listed medications Resident #32 currently received. On 7/9/21 at 10:44 AM, Nurse #2, who made rounds with the physician, was interviewed. She stated when the physician made monthly resident visits, they went through the chart and updated the resident ' s medications and made other necessary changes. She did not know why Resident #32 ' s medications were not updated.
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.
  • • 38% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 68/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Stokes County Nursing Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Stokes County Nursing Home 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 Stokes County Nursing Home Staffed?

CMS rates Stokes County Nursing Home'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 Stokes County Nursing Home?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at Stokes County Nursing Home during 2021 to 2024. These included: 10 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Stokes County Nursing Home?

Stokes County Nursing Home is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIFEBRITE HOSPITAL GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 40 certified beds and approximately 37 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Danbury, North Carolina.

How Does Stokes County Nursing Home Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Stokes County Nursing Home's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Stokes County Nursing Home?

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 Stokes County Nursing Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Stokes County Nursing Home 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 Stokes County Nursing Home Stick Around?

Stokes County Nursing Home 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 Stokes County Nursing Home Ever Fined?

Stokes County Nursing Home has been fined $5,735 across 1 penalty action. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,136. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Stokes County Nursing Home on Any Federal Watch List?

Stokes County Nursing Home 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.

Stokes County Nursing Home

1570 NC 8 and 89 Highway, Danbury, NC 27016 | (336) 593-2831

C+
Trust Grade (68/100)
3.0
CMS Rating
11
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025