Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns in care quality. It ranks #281 out of 417 nursing homes in North Carolina, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #3 out of 3 in Nash County, meaning it is the least favorable option locally. While the facility is improving, having reduced issues from 9 to 3 over the past year, it still has considerable weaknesses, including critical incidents where a resident with diabetes did not receive necessary blood sugar monitoring, and another resident experienced serious post-operative complications due to a lack of communication regarding anticoagulant medication. Staffing has a turnover rate of 43%, which is slightly better than the state average, but the facility has also incurred $27,872 in fines, suggesting some compliance problems. On a positive note, the facility offers average RN coverage, which is important for catching issues that CNAs might miss.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Carolina
- #281/417
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $27,872 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below North Carolina average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below North Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near North Carolina avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
1 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
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, and staff, Physician Assistant and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to implement physici...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, Medical Director, and Physician Assistant interviews the facility failed to notify the physic...
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 maintain a complete and accurate medical record by failing to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
3 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, family, staff interview, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Doctor interview the facility failed ...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, nurse practitioner, and physician interview the facility failed to notify the physician...
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
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and pharmacist interview, the facility failed to follow labeling information for monito...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident, Power of Attorney, and staff interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to provide a bar...
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 observations, record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident mental health diagnosis f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to revise the care plan in t...
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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain an order for oxygen and respiratory the...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have the Infection Preventionist in attendance for 1 of 6 quality assessment and assurance (QAA) committee meetings. This c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to cover a urinary catheter bag for 2 of 3 (Resident #87) residents reviewed for dignity.
The findings included:
Resident #87 was admitted...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, staff and resident interview the facility failed to include a resident in the initial care planning for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise the care plan based on physician orders for 1 of 5 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to apply a palm splint per the plan of care for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 interview the facility failed to provide complete incontinence care for 1 of 3 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to monitor and report out of range temperatures for 1 of 1 medication refrigerator (main medication room refrigerator), th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 respiratory therapy interview the facility failed to provide tracheostomy care eve...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included tracheostomy (a surgical opening through the...
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
- • 43% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $27,872 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $27,872 in fines. Higher than 94% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center 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 Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center?
Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center 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 SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 117 certified beds and approximately 101 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
How Does Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center 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 Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center has been fined $27,872 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,358. 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 Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Rocky Mount Rehabilitation Center 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.