BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
The Brian Center of Fincastle has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance and some concerning issues. They rank #65 out of 285 nursing homes in Virginia, placing them in the top half, and #2 out of 3 in Botetourt County, suggesting only one nearby facility is better. The trend is improving, as the number of issues decreased from 8 in 2022 to just 1 in 2024. Staffing is a mixed bag; while they have a low turnover rate of 37%, earning a 2/5 star rating for staffing means there are still concerns. They have significant fines totaling $38,281, which is higher than 93% of Virginia facilities, indicating compliance issues. On a positive note, they provide more RN coverage than 96% of state facilities, which helps catch potential problems. However, there have been serious incidents, including a failure to provide necessary ventilator care, resulting in the death of a resident, and a past issue where a ventilator alarm was not activated. Additionally, there was a concern about the dishwashing machine not reaching proper sanitizing temperatures. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Virginia
- #65/285
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 37% turnover. Near Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $38,281 in fines. Lower than most Virginia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 87 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Virginia nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (37%)
11 points below Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Mar 2024
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, facility staff failed to ensure a ventilator dependent resident was provided with such care consistent with...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, document review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to...
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 interviews, facility document review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to main...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the facility's ventilators were maintained according to manufactures guidance for 36 of the 36 ventilators located at the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
5 deficiencies
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
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and during a medication pass and pour observation the facility staff failed to follow the providers order in regards to administering the medication P...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 18 current residents, Resident #9 was free of accident hazards.
Resident #9 did not have th...
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
Based on interviews, clinical record reviews, facility document review, and during the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to ensure indwelling urinary catheter care orders ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure infection control isolation precautions signage was posted for two (2) resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and facility document review, the facility staff failed to implement infection control prevention and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2021
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, employee record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to implement their policy related to preventing abuse, neglect and exploitation in regards to ...
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
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, facility staff failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with the comprehensive person-centered care plan as evidenc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review facility staff failed to provided wound care as ordered by the physician for 1 of 15 residents, Resident #28.
Facility staff members failed to ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. For Resident #29, the facility staff failed to administer enteral water flushes as ordered by the physician on 3/02/21 and staff failed to accurately transcribe the physician's order for the entera...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to act upon a monthly drug regimen review for 1 of 15 residents in the survey sample, Resident #48.
The findings include...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure that residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for 1 of 15 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review, and during a medication pass and pour observation, the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and the review of documents, it was determined facility staff members failed to perform hand hygiene when changing gloves during wound care for two (2) of 15 sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2019
7 deficiencies
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 observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide privacy during wound care...
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 observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide privacy during wound care...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide...
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** Based on staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to properl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure a hazard free environment on 3 of 3 halls.
The findings included:
Numerous entrance/exit doors to Resident rooms were ob...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the dish machine was in proper working order.
The findings included:
The facility failed to e...
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
- • 37% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $38,281 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $38,281 in fines. Higher than 94% of Virginia facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brian Center Of Fincastle's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Virginia, 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 Brian Center Of Fincastle Staffed?
CMS rates BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brian Center Of Fincastle?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 22 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 Brian Center Of Fincastle?
BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by KISSITO HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FINCASTLE, Virginia.
How Does Brian Center Of Fincastle Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Brian Center Of Fincastle?
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 Brian Center Of Fincastle Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Virginia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Brian Center Of Fincastle Stick Around?
BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for Virginia 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 Brian Center Of Fincastle Ever Fined?
BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE has been fined $38,281 across 3 penalty actions. The Virginia average is $33,462. 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 Brian Center Of Fincastle on Any Federal Watch List?
BRIAN CENTER OF FINCASTLE 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.