White Oak Manor-Shelby
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
White Oak Manor-Shelby has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's care and operations. Ranking #305 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and it is last among the four nursing homes in Cleveland County. Although the facility's trend is improving, moving from 10 issues in 2024 down to 4 in 2025, the staffing situation is troubling with a 70% turnover rate, which is well above the state average. The nursing home also faces a hefty fine of $96,027, which is higher than 78% of facilities in the state, indicating ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident being pushed in a wheelchair with their foot caught and sustaining injuries and another resident who fell from a wheelchair that was not appropriate for their needs, resulting in a serious fracture. While there are some strengths, such as a slight improvement in the number of reported issues, the overall picture raises serious concerns for families considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Carolina
- #305/417
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 70% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $96,027 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 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
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below North Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
24pts above North Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
22 points above North Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
2 deficiencies
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 record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized person-cent...
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 observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2025
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
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, staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner when Resid...
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Resident Representative, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide dignity for a cognitively ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
3 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
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 interviews the facility failed to provide nail care for a dependent re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish policies and procedures for standard and transmission-based precautions and failed to implement Enhanced Ba...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews the facility failed to designate a qualified Infection Preventionist (IP) who had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control, to be responsible for th...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
7 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, resident interview, and staff interviews the facility failed to safely transfer a resident when Nurse Ai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to treat a resident in a dignified manner when staf...
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 record review and staff interviews the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans in the areas of anticoagulan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, Nurse Practitioner and Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to clarify orders for monitoring...
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, facility activity calendar, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure evening and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff, Nurse Practitioner and Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to obtain a routine medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide evening snacks to residents when requested f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
3 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow their neglect policy in the areas of reporti...
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to pro...
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: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $96,027 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $96,027 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (6/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is White Oak Manor-Shelby's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns White Oak Manor-Shelby 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 White Oak Manor-Shelby Staffed?
CMS rates White Oak Manor-Shelby's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 70%, which is 24 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 70%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at White Oak Manor-Shelby?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at White Oak Manor-Shelby during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 13 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates White Oak Manor-Shelby?
White Oak Manor-Shelby 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 WHITE OAK MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 160 certified beds and approximately 101 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Shelby, North Carolina.
How Does White Oak Manor-Shelby Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, White Oak Manor-Shelby's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (70%) 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 White Oak Manor-Shelby?
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 White Oak Manor-Shelby Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, White Oak Manor-Shelby has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 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 White Oak Manor-Shelby Stick Around?
Staff turnover at White Oak Manor-Shelby is high. At 70%, the facility is 24 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 70%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 White Oak Manor-Shelby Ever Fined?
White Oak Manor-Shelby has been fined $96,027 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the North Carolina average of $34,039. 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 White Oak Manor-Shelby on Any Federal Watch List?
White Oak Manor-Shelby 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.