Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is among the poorest ratings available. Ranking #283 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and it is the lowest-rated facility in Halifax County. The trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 11 in 2025, highlighting growing problems within the facility. Staffing is a significant concern, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a 75% turnover rate, which is much higher than the state average. While the facility has average RN coverage, there have been serious incidents, including a resident developing a maggot infestation in a wound and another suffering a leg fracture due to improper transfer methods, raising serious alarms about safety and care standards.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Carolina
- #283/417
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 75% turnover. Very high, 27 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $14,015 in fines. Higher than 53% of North Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Below North Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
29pts above North Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
27 points above North Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
May 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, resident interview, staff interview, and nurse consultant interview, the facility failed to perform a tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
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 complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Significant Change in Stat...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 and Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to develop a person-c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for tracheostomy (a s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 ensure a resident receiving dialysis had a physician's order...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessm...
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 observations and staff interviews the facility failed to (1) label and date an open insulin injector pen and an open albuterol inhaler (Unit 3) and failed to refrigerate a medication accordin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment clean and in a sanitary condition to prevent the potential cross contamination of food by failing to clea...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage was contained in a closed dumpster and doors were kept closed for 1of 2 dumpsters observed.
The findings included:
An...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to annually review and update the facility assessment, which had the potential to affect 80 of 80 residents in the facility, and to ens...
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** Based on record review, and staff and Ombudsman interviews, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman in writing of a resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, 7 days week for 17 of 192 days reviewed (5/7/23; 5/13/23, 6...
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** Based on record review, staff interviews and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide written notificati...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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 F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for...
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 and physician and staff interviews, the facility failed to inform the surgeon of the status of a surgical...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
5 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility staff, Emergency Department Physician's Assistant, Outpatient Clinic Nurse, Dialysis Nurse Mana...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff and resident interviews and record review the facility failed to implement an effective discharge planning proces...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to accurately code cognition (Resident #57 and Resident #52), di...
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 staff interviews and medical record review, the facility ' s Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor those interventions the com...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
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 complete a recapitulation of stay for 1 of 1 resident reviewe...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $14,015 in fines. Above average for North Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids 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 Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids Staffed?
CMS rates Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 75%, which is 29 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 16 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids?
Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids 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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 78 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina.
How Does Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (75%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids is high. At 75%, the facility is 29 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids Ever Fined?
Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids has been fined $14,015 across 1 penalty action. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,219. 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 Signature Healthcare Of Roanoke Rapids on Any Federal Watch List?
Signature Healthcare of Roanoke Rapids 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.