RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation in Gloucester, Virginia has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating they are slightly above average, though not without issues. They rank #101 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, placing them in the top half, but they are the second best option in Gloucester County, with only one other nearby facility. The trend is stable, as they reported three issues in both 2022 and 2023, showing consistency in performance. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average of 48%, suggesting staff are experienced. While they have no fines on record, there are some concerns; for instance, staff failed to protect a resident from abuse resulting in serious harm, and there were issues with food safety and the lack of a qualified activities director, indicating areas needing improvement alongside their strengths.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Virginia
- #101/285
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Jul 2023
3 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care directing measurable goals and interventions related to pain ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the Recreational Therapy Director's job description, the facility failed to consistently provide a program of meaningful activities in acc...
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 policy review, the facility staff failed to properly store, label and date food items, and clean the floors within the facility's main kitchen. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to provide required postings, including a list of names, ad...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility documentation review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to continue skille...
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 Observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to perform handwashing, and gloving during medication pour and pass observations ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2019
17 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
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 resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff fail...
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 observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain dignity for one residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility documentation review and clinical record review the facility staff failed to uphold a Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to notify the Resident and Resident's representa...
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 resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff fail...
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 observation, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review the facility staff failed to de...
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** 3. Resident #297 was told by a nurse to keep his Albuterol in his drawer. In addition, LPN B did not enter a complete order.
Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
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 an activity program for t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to mitigate an accident hazard for 1 (R...
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, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility documentation review and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure one Resid...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #297, the facility staff failed to safely secure storage of an Albuterol inhaler.
Resident #297, an [AGE] year o...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review the facility staff failed to provide a qualified activities director for one of three units.
The findings included...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. For Resident #297, the facility staff failed to document the self administration of Albuterol.
Resident #297, an [AGE] year o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to have quarterly QAA/QAPI (Quality Assessment and Assurance/ Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement) meetings ...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
- • 39% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS 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 Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders Staffed?
CMS rates RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS during 2019 to 2023. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 22 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders?
RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by RIVERSIDE HEALTH SYSTEM, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 55 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GLOUCESTER, Virginia.
How Does Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Virginia. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders Stick Around?
RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders Ever Fined?
RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Riverside Lifelong Health & Rehabilitation Sanders on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVERSIDE LIFELONG HEALTH & REHABILITATION SANDERS 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.