Ashton Health and Rehabilitation

5533 Burlington Road, McLeansville, NC 27301 (336) 698-0045
For profit - Limited Liability company 134 Beds SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#5 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Ashton Health and Rehabilitation in McLeansville, North Carolina, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #5 out of 417 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is #1 out of 20 in Guilford County, indicating it is the best local choice. The facility is improving, with the number of issues found decreasing from two in 2024 to one in 2025. However, staffing received a lower rating of 2 out of 5 stars, with a 50% turnover rate, which is slightly better than the state average. While there were fines totaling $8,788, this is considered average, but there is concerningly less RN coverage than 98% of North Carolina facilities, which could impact care quality. Specific incidents noted include a serious incident where a resident fell from a raised bed during care, resulting in a hip injury that required hospitalization. Additionally, there were concerns about proper transfer protocols not being followed for another resident, which may have put them at risk for injury. Lastly, the facility has struggled with maintaining effective quality assurance processes, as shown by repeated deficiencies noted in inspections. Overall, while Ashton Health and Rehabilitation has some strengths, particularly in its overall ratings and local ranking, there are notable weaknesses in staffing and specific care practices that families should consider.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In North Carolina
#5/417
Top 1%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$8,788 in fines. Higher than 92% of North Carolina facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 12 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $8,788

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency 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 Nurse Practitioner (NP), Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide care...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and Nurse Practitioner (NP), Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner when Resident #1 rolled out of her bed that was raised to just below the hip onto the floor during incontinence care. Resident #1 was sent to the emergency room (ER) for pain in her right shoulder and right hip with some deformity and external rotation. Resident #1 was diagnosed with an unusual right hip impaction fracture (occurs when a bone is broken and the broken ends are forced into each other) of the femoral head (the rounded end of thigh bone that fits into the socket of the hip joint). Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital and underwent hip replacement. This was for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis (infection of the bone) of vertebra in the lumbar region, type 2 diabetes mellitus and infection of her heart valve. The Nursing Assistant (NA) Care Guide dated 2/3/25 indicated Resident #1 was marked as needing set-up for eating, 2 person-assist for bed mobility, 2 person-assist for transfers and was dependent on staff for incontinent care. A physician order for Resident #1 dated 2/3/25 indicated an apixaban (anticoagulant) 5 milligrams (mg) twice a day to be given orally. The care plan for Resident #1 dated 2/4/25 revealed a problem area identified was an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-performance deficit related to cognitive impairment. Another problem area identified was the resident being at risk for falls/injury from falls related to impaired mobility, impaired cognition, and incontinence. The approaches included assisting with transfer, mobility, and toileting. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was moderately cognitively impaired. She was coded as totally dependent for rolling left and right side. She was coded for upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower (hip, knee, ankle, foot) extremities impairment. She was also coded for use of anticoagulants and her recorded weight was 248 pounds. The occupational therapy assessment notes dated 2/19/25 revealed Resident #1 required maximal assistance for bed mobility. The physical therapy evaluation notes dated 2/19/25 revealed Resident #1 was dependent for bed mobility (roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of the bed). The Event Report completed by Nurse #1 for Resident #1 dated 4/9/25 at 2:36 pm indicated Resident #1 had a witnessed fall during care in the resident's room. The report detailed Resident #1 was in pain with a pain level marked as 6 (0-10 scale with 10 being the worst pain possible). A body observation indicated no injury was noted and range of motion (ROM) was painful in lower extremity. The positioning assessment revealed that there was no rotation/deformity/shortening noted. It was documented that Resident #1 was alert and oriented to name and place. There were no contributing factors marked for this event and the intervention recorded was that Resident #1 was transferred to the ER. A progress note on 4/9/25 at 1:50 pm revealed Resident #1 was ordered by the NP to be transferred to ER via Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The hospital records from the ER dated 4/9/25 revealed Resident #1 was complaining of pain in her shoulders and her right leg after the fall. The admission notes assessments indicated an abrasion overlying the anterior (front) portion of the left shoulder. There was some mild underlying tenderness, mild pain on the palpation (a method of feeling with the fingers or hands during a physical examination) of the right shoulder. There was some external rotation of the right leg and tenderness in the hip, knee and ankle. The radiology reports from the hospital dated 4/9/25 for the right hip revealed an unusual fracture of the right hip, superior subluxation (partial/incomplete dislocation) of the proximal (closer to the center of the body) femur with impaction fracture of the femoral head which may be impacted on the acetabulum (hip socket). The clinical data report revealed that Resident #1 complained of pain in her right and left shoulder, right knee, chest, and right ankle. The Computed Tomography (CT) scan result from the hospital on 4/9/25 revealed a superolateral subluxation (partial separation of joints) of the right femoral head with respect to the acetabulum (concave surface of the pelvis) with impacted appearance of the femoral head on the superior acetabulum. A fracture involving the anterosuperior acetabulum (a prominent landmark that lies in the superior hip that can be palpated called lighthouse of the hip) with displaced fracture fragments. The Orthopedic consultation from the hospital on 4/9/25 revealed Resident #1 had severe pain from the right hip. It was noted that any movement or mobilization of the bed was excruciatingly painful. Review of the hospital records revealed Resident #1 required medical treatment for other health issues before she could have surgery. Resident #1 went through orthopedic surgery for hip replacement on 4/14/25. The hospital records indicated that Resident #1 was discharged from the hospital on 4/17/25 and did not return to the facility. NA #2 was interviewed on 4/29/25 at 3:01 pm and revealed that she took care of Resident #1 before the day of the fall. NA #2 stated the resident was always marked in the NA Care Guide for 2 person-assist for bed mobility. NA #2 stated she called for help anytime she took care of the resident. NA #2 further stated that they kept a binder in the nurses' station where staff could find the Care Guide for each resident. Interview with NA #1 via telephone on 4/29/25 at 12:54 pm revealed she was assigned to Resident #1 and was providing incontinence care before lunch around 11:30 am on 4/9/25. NA #1 stated she rolled Resident #1 away from her onto the resident's right side to clean her backside. NA #1 stated she lifted and crossed the resident's left leg over towards the top of the right leg. Resident #1 rolled too far over and went straight to the floor. NA #1 stated she didn't see if Resident #1 hit anything as she couldn't see the other side (right side) of the bed (NA #1 was on the left side). When she looked at the resident on the other side of the bed, Resident #1 was on her the right side of her body on the floor. NA #1 stated she called out for the nurses to help while staying with Resident #1. She stated that Resident #1 was talking and complaining of pain in her right hip. NA #1 stated the height of the bed when the resident fell was just below the hip. NA #1 stated she was alone doing the incontinent care and she thought she could do it herself. NA #1 stated she had not always taken care of Resident #1 because the nurse aides rotated their schedule daily and she knew where the Care Guide was at the nurses' station binder. An interview with Nurse #1 on 4/29/25 at 12:22 pm revealed she was working the morning shift on 4/9/25 and was called into the room for Resident #1 at around 11:30 am. Nurse #1 stated NA #1 called out for help for Resident #1 who fell out of bed during incontinence care. Nurse #1 stated when she got in the room Resident #1 was lying flat on her back on the floor. She stated Resident #1 was talking and complained of right leg pain. According to her the resident stated she hit her head on the nightstand before reaching the floor. Nurse #1 stated she assessed Resident #1 and vital signs were normal. Nurse #1 stated there was no bruising and nothing out of position on the resident's shoulders and legs. She stated the resident complained of pain around 7-8 on the pain scale. Nurse #1 and the other staff transferred the resident to her bed. Nurse #1 stated the in-house NP was in the building that day and was called to assess Resident #1. The NP came and talked to Resident #1 and ordered EMS to transport the resident to the ER for treatment. The NP was interviewed via telephone on 4/29/25 at 3:26 pm. The NP stated she was called in the room of Resident #1 for a fall just before noon (12:00 pm) on 4/9/25. The NP stated she went straight to the resident's room and the resident's vital signs were normal. The NP stated Resident #1 was back in bed when she saw the resident and spoke with her. She was told by Resident #1 she hit her head on the nightstand. She knew that it was important to send the resident out for evaluation due to Resident #1 was taking blood thinner (anticoagulant) medication. The NP stated that Resident #1 was complaining of pain all over and refused to be touched for examination. The NP stated that she suspected a hip fracture from the fall due to the resident's right leg being externally rotated and it was noticeably shorter. The NP stated Resident #1 was not able move her legs and there were no lacerations noted. The NP stated she ordered the resident to be evaluated at the ER. The interview with the Medical Director of the facility on 4/29/25 at 4:42 pm revealed Resident #1, as he recalled, needed 2 person-assist because of her immobility status. The Medical Director stated that if a resident was immobile and needed 2 person-assist, the facility staff should move the resident by two nurse aides. The Medical Director declined to rule out the cause of the fracture but deferred to the NP's assessment and what was revealed in the hospital records. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/29/25 at 1:11 pm revealed that Resident #1 was marked for 2 person-assist and that NA #1 did not follow the facility protocol to have another NA help with bed mobility during incontinent care. An interview with the Administrator on 4/29/25 at 1:12 pm revealed that the Rehab Department was in communication with the Nursing Department for mobility and transfers of each resident. She stated that NA #1 failed to follow the Care Guide for Resident #1 that was provided in the binder. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a corrective date of 4/11/25. Address how will the corrective action be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. On 4/9/25 Nurse Aide (NA) #1 was providing incontinence care for Resident #1 with no assistance when the care guide called for a 2 person assist with care. NA #1 rolled Resident #1 on her side to clean her back and she rolled off the bed hitting her head on the nightstand and was complaining of right hip pain, NA #1 called out for help and Nurse #1 came to the room to assess the resident. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was in the building and assessed Resident #1, who complained of right hip pain and noted a possible abnormality of the right leg but was unable to do a thorough assessment due to resident refusal, she then gave an order to send the resident to the ER for evaluation. Resident #1 was diagnosed with severe/aggressive changes of septic arthritis and osteomyelitis involving the right hip. The right hip is subluxed superiorly and laterally and the femoral head and neck are partially destroyed with pathological fracture. On 4/9/25 NA #1 was immediately retrained by the Director of Nursing (DON) to check the care guide for staff assistance for 1 or 2 staff before providing resident care. The DON also provided education to NA #1 on never turning a resident away from you when providing care alone, they should be turned toward you when providing care alone. NA #1 was required to repeat back to the DON what she had been educated on to ensure understanding. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. On 4/10/25 the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Unit Managers, and the MDS Nurse audited 100% of all current resident care guides to ensure they were up to date and correct. Changes were made at the time of the audit if needed. On 4/10/25 the DON and the Regional Clinical Manager completed an audit of all current residents with falls for the past 30 days to ensure no other adverse events took place due to deficient practice. No other issues were found. On 4/10/25 residents who have a care guide stated maximum assistance of 2 people with activities of daily living (ADL) have been identified as having the potential to be affected by the deficient practice. The DON and the Regional Clinical Manager completed an audit of current residents with a care guide of the maximum assistance of 2 people with Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and 22 residents were identified to have the potential to be affected by the deficient practice by requiring maximum assistance of 2 people with ADLs. On 4/10/25 an audit was conducted by the DON or designee to verify by observation that residents were provided with the correct assistance with ADL care and bed mobility. No other residents were found to be affected as ADL care was provided by maximum assistance of 2 people for the 22 residents identified. Residents were interviewed while observations were completed, and none had concerns with ADL care or assistance. What measures will be put in place or systemic changes will be made to ensure deficient practice will not recur. On 4/10/25 education was completed with current Nurse Aide staff by the DON and the Regional Clinical Manager on ADL care and bed mobility for residents that require maximum assistance of 2 people for safety. NAs that did not receive the education will receive education prior to his/her next scheduled shift. The DON will keep a list to ensure all Nurse Aide staff receive education and will add the education to the new hire orientation education. New NA staff will not be allowed to begin work until education has been completed. On 4/10/25 the Administrator and Director of Nursing made the decision to switch to pocket care guides for staff. All residents care guides transitioned to pocket care guides on 4/10/25. The Unit managers, Staff development Coordinator and aides were notified of this change on 04/10/25. The facility will establish a pocket care guide, which is updated daily (Mon-Fri) by the DON or designee. This care guide will be printed for each shift daily and will be distributed by the Unit Managers or designee to the NAs to carry with them during their shift. The pocket guide will consist of the following information: Resident name and room number, any isolation precautions, dining location, dining assistance, assistance needed with transfers, assistance needed with bed mobility, brief size and color, skin - float heels, turn and reposition, bowel and bladder continence, side rails, recent falls, fall interventions, Mechanical lift status, equipment, other. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure solutions are sustained. On 4/10/25 an ad hoc QAPI meeting was held to discuss the deficient practice and implement a plan of correction with audit tools. Root cause analysis revealed Resident #1 was care planned for maximum assistance of 2 people however NA #1 was providing care alone. The Director of Nursing or Unit Managers will observe 10 random resident care interactions weekly for the next 90 days for residents who are 2 person-assist for ADL Care. Re-education will be provided immediately to any staff observed not providing care per the care guide. The Director of Nursing will be responsible for taking the audits to QA monthly for 3 months until substantial compliance is achieved. The facility's date of compliance is 4/11/25. On 4/30/2025, the facility's coorective action plan was validated. Resident #1 never came back to the facility after the hospitalization. During the tour of the facility, residents were observed to have 2 person-assist during incontinence care. The in-services by the facility included information on the use of pocket Care Guide and that each nursing staff should always have one with them. Staff interviews confirmed education was received for the use of the Care Guide and provided by the Unit Manager/Supervisor daily. The facility provided evidence of an Ad Hoc meeting was held to discuss the deficient practice and implement a plan of correction with audit tools. The facility provided evidence of Quality Assurance auditing of all residents with fall. Interviews with NAs revealed they have their own copy of the Care Guide with them. The alleged compliance date of 4/11/25 was validated.
May 2024 2 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 transfer the resident with a mechanical lift putting the resi...

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 transfer the resident with a mechanical lift putting the resident at risk for injury for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #270). The findings included: Resident # 270 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction and cognitive communication deficit. The care plan dated 3/5/24 revealed a focused area for at risk for falls and required extensive/total assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) positioning, transfers, mobility, and hygiene. Interventions included the use of a mechanical lift with 2-person assistance for out of bed transfers. The Mminimum Data Set quarterly assessment dated [DATE] in Resident #270 was cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for shower transfers. An interview was conducted with NA #1 on 4/30/24 at 12:19 pm. She revealed that she and two trainees (NA #2 and NA #3) assisted Resident #270 in taking a shower on 4/9/24. She indicated that she had worked with this resident prior but that she had never had to transfer out of bed so she did not know she required the use of a mechanical lift and forgot to check the care guide to determine her transfer requirements. She further revealed that NA #2 and NA #3 were both in training and each supported the resident under each arm while she supported her feet during the transfer. She indicated that during the time she was taken to the shower, in the shower, and transferred back to bed, there was no observed accident or reason to feel any injury had occurred. NA #1 also indicated that this resident was known to make noises when she was moved. Multiple attempts were made to interview NA #2 but unable to reach staff member for interview. Multiple attempts were made to interview NA #3 but unable to reach staff member for interview. A review of a nursing (Nurse #1) progress note dated 4/9/24 indicated that Resident #270 was given a shower on 4/9/24 and was transferred by 3 NAs.The progress note further revealed that at 7:00 pm the responsible party (RP) came back to the nurse's station and requested an x-ray just to make sure there was not an injury. Nurse #1 contacted the NP and ordered a stat x-ray. A review of the x-ray results dated 4/9/24 revealed there was no radiographic evidence of acute fracture or dislocation. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 4/30/24 at 12:06 pm and she indicated that the responsible party told her that Resident #270 was complaining of pain in her leg. Nurse #1 went to residents' room with RP present, assessed for pain and Resident #270 reported pain from a headache. Nurse #1 indicated that she medicated her with acetaminophen and had no further reports of pain or injury. Nurse #1 also revealed that Resident #270 was known to not like to be moved for any reason such as turning and repositioning or incontinence care would moan or seem like it bothered her but as soon as staff would stop, she would stop making the noise. A review of progress note dated 4/10/14 indicated Resident #270 was transferred out of the facility to the emergency room per resident representative's request and that the resident will not return to the facility. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/1/24 at 3:22pm. She indicated that on 4/10/24 she became aware that NA #1 had transferred Resident #270 without the use of a mechanical lift, and she initiated a performance improvement plan. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 4/12/2024. On 4/9/2024 the Resident's son stated that her leg stated was hurting, nurse assessed, and resident reported a headache. As needed acetaminophen was administered. On 4/9/2024 X-Ray was obtained for resident, no acute findings. On 4/10/2024 Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. Corrective action for potentially impacted residents: All residents are at risk of being affected by the deficient practice. On 4/10/24 the Administrator, Interim Director of Nursing and the Unit Managers initiated education for all nursing staff to look at care guides before providing care and following the resident's care plan for all aspects of care. On 4/10/24 skin checks were completed on non-alert and oriented residents by the Unit Managers to ensure no other resident was affected by the deficient practice. Results included: No other residents were identified to be affected. On 4/10/24 the Administrator and the Director of Clinical Services identified residents that would be potentially impacted by the alleged deficient practice by completing resident interviews for all current resident with BIMS of 10 or higher and asked if they had any concerns to ensure they had never been transferred with the inappropriate number of staff. Results included: No new findings were identified. On 4/10/2024, after concluding investigation, the Quality Assurance Committee convened to discuss the resident care plan not being followed for resident transfer. There were no additional findings at that time. Systemic Changes: On 4/10/24 the Director of Clinical Services educated the Administrator, Interim Director of Nursing, and the Unit Managers that staff must look at care guides before providing care and follow the resident's care plan for all aspects of care. On 4/11/24 the Administrator, Interim Director of Nursing and the Unit Managers educated all remaining nursing staff to look at care guides before providing care and following the resident's care plan for all aspects of care. No staff will be allowed to work until the education has been completed, the Administrator will be responsible for keeping a list of who has been trained. The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring all new hires receive this education before being allowed to work their first shift. Staff members expressed verbal understanding. Quality Assurance: Beginning the week of 4/15/2024 the Administrator and the Interim Director of Nursing will conduct observations of 4 residents care at random, 4 times a week for 4 weeks, 3 residents care at random 2 times a week for 4 weeks, then 2 residents at random weekly for 4 weeks to ensure staff look at care guides before providing care and follow the resident's care plan for all aspects of care. Results will be documented on the audit tool titled Transfer Audit results will be reported at the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee meetings by the Administrator where they will be reviewed and discussed for 3 months. The Quality Assurance Committee will assess and modify the action plan as needed to ensure continued compliance. Date of compliance 04/12/2024 The Corrective Action plan was validated 5/1/24 and concluded the facility had implemented an acceptable corrective action plan on 4/12/24. Interview with current nursing staff revealed they had received education on and training on following the care guide and transfers. The audits conducted starting on 4/15/24 revealed residents were asked about transfer safety. Skin checks were completed for all non-alert and oriented residents on 4/10/24. The audits continued through the validation date. The Quality Assurance Committee convened on 4/10/24 to discuss the resident care plan not being followed for resident transfer. The next QAPI meeting is scheduled for 5/15/24 to discuss the results documented on the transfer audit tool. On 5/1/24 there was sufficient evidence to support the facility's Corrective Action Plan that was implemented and carried out by 4/12/24.
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

Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee(QAPI) failed to maintain implemented effective procedures and monitor the interventi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee(QAPI) failed to maintain implemented effective procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following a complaint investigation dated 9/16/21 for one deficiency in the area of Quality of Care, F 689. The deficiency was also cited during the recertification and complaint survey dated 11/19/21 and subsequently recited during the recertification and complaint survey dated 05/01/24. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. Findings included. This tag is cross referenced to: F 689: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to transfer the resident with a mechanical lift putting the resident at risk for injury for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #270). During a complaint investigation on 09/16/21,the facility failed to protect a resident from a fall during bed mobility causing the resident to be lowered to the ground which resulted in a nondisplaced radial neck fracture (elbow). This was evident in 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents. During the Recertification and complaint survey 11/19/21, the facility failed to implement effective interventions to prevent further burns for a resident that experienced burns while smoking in 1 of 3 residents reviewed for smoking. Interview was conducted with the Administrator on 05/01/24 at 4:25 pm and she indicated that she expected all citations to be monitored through the center's QAPI program. Any repeat citation would require continuous monitoring through monthly QAPI meetings until the deficient practice has been resolved. After resolved, the center would continue to monitor the resolved issue through its quarterly QAPI meetings. Education would be completed to ensure staff are aware of expectations and these expectations would be tracked by way of auditing.
Apr 2023 2 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 F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor a resident's choice for goi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor a resident's choice for going outdoors for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for choices. (Resident #71). The findings included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included muscle wasting and atrophy and abnormality of gait and mobility. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #71 was cognitively intact and felt that going outside for fresh air was very important to her. A review of the care plan 4/1/23 revealed a focused area of resident involved in activities less than 1/3 of the time with a goal that Resident #71 will express satisfaction in quality and quantity of activities. The interventions included providing a setting in which activities are preferred. On 4/24/23 at 12:39PM an interview was conducted with Resident #71. She stated she was supposed to be assisted out of bed so she could go outside for fresh air, but staff did not get her up and take her outdoors. On 4/25/23 at 2:20PM, Resident # 71 stated she did not receive assistance to get up and go outdoors on Monday 4/24/23. She further revealed that she requested to get up and go outside this morning, but the NA has not gotten her up today. ON 4/25/23 at 2:27pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #2. She revealed that she was not aware that Resident #71 wanted to get up and go outside and that there was only one NA on the hall and Resident #71 required a mechanical lift and two people to assist. On 4/25/23 at 2:28pm an interview was conducted with NA #1. She revealed that she provided care for Resident #71 during the shift but did not know that she wanted to get up or go outside. The NA further revealed that she did not ask Resident #71 if she wanted to get up because she is normally in bed and did not know that going outdoors was important to her. On 4/27/23 at 9:15am an interview was conducted with the Administrator. She revealed that her expectation was for residents' choices and preferences to be honored by staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #71 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #71's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #71 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #71's electronic health record (EHR) revealed no advance directive information. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #71 revealed her to be cognitively intact. On 4/26/23 at 10:55am an interview was conducted with Nurse #1. She revealed that nurses utilize a resident information notebook at the station that holds all residents advance directives from that household and this information is available on the resident's EHR. Nurse #1 reviewed the resident information notebook, and she was not able to locate information regarding Resident #71's code status. Nurse #1 reviewed the EHR but was not able to locate the current code status and revealed she was not aware of the Resident #71's code status. On 4/26/23 at 11:30am an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator. She indicated that her expectation was for nursing staff to have knowledge of their assigned residents code status via the EHR, and the hard copy located in the resident information book. Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to determine upon admission and readmission to the facility, a resident's advanced directives (code status) for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for advance directives. (Resident #71 and Resident #295). The findings included: 1. Resident #295 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, pneumonia, cerebral infarction, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #295 had moderate cognitive impairment. Further review of Resident #295's medical records showed the original Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form was dated and signed on 4/19/23. There was a revised MOST form effective 4/25/23 with antibiotic use provisions. Review of Resident #295's physician orders and care plan revealed there were no advanced directives included. An interview was conducted on 4/26/23 at 11:20 AM with Nurse #3. She confirmed there were no advanced directives for Resident # 295 located in the electronic record on the face sheet or in the physician orders. She indicated the nurses used a notebook at the nurse station that holds every resident's advanced directives for that hall. The MOST form for Resident #295 was dated 4/19/23 present in the notebook. Nurse #3 revealed she was concerned that Resident #295's MOST form was not signed until 4/19/23 and she would not have known the code status if needed emergently. She further revealed the normal process to determine code status was during the initial admission date and the MOST form should be placed in the notebook at the nurse station. During a follow up interview with the Administrator on 4/28/23 at 9:00 AM, she revealed she was unaware that Resident #295's advanced directives were not signed and effective upon admission date. She stated all residents were automatically determined to be a full code until their MOST form was signed by the resident or responsible party and the physician. She explained Resident #295 would have remained a full code until the MOST form was signed on 4/19/23. The Administrator stated the advanced directives should be determined upon admission date and the responsibility was between the admission nurse, the charge nurse, or the social worker to have MOST forms 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
  • • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in North Carolina.
Concerns
  • • 5 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Ashton Health And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Ashton Health and Rehabilitation 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 Ashton Health And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates Ashton Health and Rehabilitation's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ashton Health And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at Ashton Health and Rehabilitation during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 4 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Ashton Health And Rehabilitation?

Ashton 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 134 certified beds and approximately 118 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in McLeansville, North Carolina.

How Does Ashton Health And Rehabilitation Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Ashton Health and Rehabilitation's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ashton Health And Rehabilitation?

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 Ashton Health And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Ashton Health and Rehabilitation 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 Ashton Health And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Ashton Health and Rehabilitation has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Ashton Health And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

Ashton Health and Rehabilitation has been fined $8,788 across 1 penalty action. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,167. 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 Ashton Health And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

Ashton 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.