Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #250 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and although it is the only option in Greene County, this suggests limited choices for families. The facility's trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, as it has a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 0%, which is good, but indicates potential staffing challenges in the future. In terms of fines, they have incurred $18,132, which is about average for the state but still raises questions about compliance. While RN coverage data is not available, the facility has serious incidents, such as the failure to properly monitor a resident's skin condition, leading to a severe pressure wound that required hospitalization. Additionally, there was an incident involving a resident who suffered bruising and a nasal fracture of unknown origin, highlighting safety issues. Overall, while the facility has some positives, such as low turnover, the significant number of documented issues and incidents raises serious concerns for families considering it for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Carolina
- #250/417
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $18,132 in fines. Higher than 59% of North Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 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
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure an accurate Medication Administration Record (MAR) wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 have effective systems in place for identifying the developm...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 keep a urinary catheter bag from touching the ...
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 administer supplemental oxygen as prescribed b...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record in documenting the administration of oxygen for 1 of 31 residents whose medical rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document care plan meetings after completion of...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to post accurate Registered Nurse (RN) staffing information for 16 of 114 days reviewed for posted nurse staffing (12/9/24, 12/16/24, 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment by not removing a dark grey/black colored substance from 20 of 25 ceiling fans observed on 8...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 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 observations, record review, staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be ...
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 observations, record review, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to notify the Physician of a residents ...
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 interviews the facility failed to implement their policy for injuries of unknown source that re...
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, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to monitor a resident following the identification of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
3 deficiencies
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to inform residents (Resident #11, Resident #6 and Resident #22) of the location of the state inspection results an...
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 staff interviews, interview with the Ombudsman and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the transfer...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interviews and review of the daily nursing staff postings, the facility failed to post accurate census numbers for 35 of 35 days.
Findings included:
During the entrance co...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
16 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's digni...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor a dependent resident's request...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide privacy when provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
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 interviews, the facility failed to code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately for 3 of ...
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 and physician interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for finger-stick blood s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 record review, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to provide oral care and nail care for 1 of 5 resi...
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 record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete dressing changes on 1 of 2 resident reviewed for woun...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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** 2. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes and dementia.
A physician order da...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 include documentation in the medical record of education reg...
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, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to label medications with resident information and with the date the medication was opened and an expiration date on 2 of...
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 observation and staff interview, the facility failed to 1) label and date leftover food items and 2) remove expired food stored for use in 1 of 2 nourishment refrigerators located in between ...
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 observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, and physician interviews the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain and implement procedure...
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 observations, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to (1) implement the Centers for Diseas...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · 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 include documentation in the medical record of education reg...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review, staff interviews, and physician interviews, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program.
Findings included:
Record review of the Antibiotics Stewardship ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $18,132 in fines. Above average for North Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Greendale Forest Nursing and 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 Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 23 with potential for harm, and 6 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?
Greendale Forest Nursing and 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 PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 115 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Snow Hill, North Carolina.
How Does Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?
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 Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Greendale Forest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has been fined $18,132 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,260. 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 Greendale Forest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Greendale Forest Nursing and 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.