Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #246 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and even though it is ranked #1 of 2 in Pasquotank County, the options are limited. While the facility is showing signs of improvement with issues decreasing from three to one over recent years, it still has a concerning number of fines amounting to $93,353, which is higher than 77% of similar facilities. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 31% that is below the state average, though RN coverage is lacking compared to 87% of facilities in the state. Specific incidents of concern include failures to properly monitor a resident's blood glucose levels, leading to critical emergencies, which raises serious questions about the competency in managing diabetic care. Overall, while there are some positive aspects, the significant deficiencies and critical incidents are alarming for families considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Carolina
- #246/417
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $93,353 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below North Carolina average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below North Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
15pts below North Carolina avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations of the meal service tray line, record review, interviews with the Registered Dietitian and staff, the facility failed to ensure residents on the 900 hall received the correct por...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #349 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Resident #349 was discharged to the hospital on 3/10/2024 due to a chan...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, staff interviews, and Ombudsman interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
3 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and Medical Director interview the facility failed to notify the physician of administ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, Pharmacy Nurse Consultant interview, Pharmacist interview, and Medical Director interv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, Pharmacist, Pharmacy Nurse Consultant, and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to dem...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
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 interview, the facility failed to accurately document a blood glucose reading as ordered for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews with Medical Director, Pharmacy Nurse Consultant, Pharmacist, and staff, the facility's Q...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, staff interview, resident interview, physician interview, physician assistant interview, an...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to identify resident to resident abuse and failed to immediately ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
11 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide care safely when a resident (Resident #295) was prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set assessment accurately for 1 of 5 sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interview the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (AD...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and physician interviews, the facility failed to provide the care ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired medications stored in 1 of 2 medication rooms observed (Sycamore Medication Room).
Findings included:
During an observ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, staff, and the facility ' s Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement infection control policies and proce...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a surety bond which named the residents of the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to inform the residents of the location and availability of the facility's survey results. This failure affected all residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman in writing when 6 of 6 residents (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 31% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $93,353 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $93,353 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 11 with potential for harm, and 6 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation?
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation 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 SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 170 certified beds and approximately 145 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
How Does Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation Stick Around?
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation has been fined $93,353 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the North Carolina average of $34,012. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Elizabeth City Health And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation 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.