AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Autumn Care of Madison has a Trust Grade of D, which means it is below average and has some concerns regarding care quality. It ranks #174 out of 285 nursing homes in Virginia, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and it is the second-best option in Madison County, indicating limited choices available. The facility is improving, with reported issues decreasing from 13 in 2023 to 2 in 2025, but it still faces challenges, particularly in staffing, which has a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 57%, slightly above the state average. While there have been no fines, there have been specific concerns, such as failing to properly manage pain for one resident and not adhering to food safety standards, which indicates potential risks in resident care. On a positive note, the RN coverage is average, meaning there is a reasonable level of nursing oversight, which is crucial for catching issues that may be overlooked by other staff.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Virginia
- #174/285
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- 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 Virginia average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
11pts above Virginia avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
9 points above Virginia average of 48%
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
2 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the physician and the responsible party of changes in condition for one of four residents in ...
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 staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
13 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to notify a resident's responsible party of a change in condition for one of 28 residents in th...
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
Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide the required written documentation for a facility-initiated ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed provide a bed hold policy notice to the resident or the resident's repre...
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
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for one of 28 residents in the survey sam...
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
2. For Resident #49 (R49) the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for the use of non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of a prn (as needed) pain medi...
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
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for one of 28 residents in the survey...
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, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed follow the physician's order for obtaining daily weights for one of 28 reside...
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, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a new heel wound was assessed accurately, and a treatment was obta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, clinical record review, staff interview and facility document review it was determined...
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
Based on observation, resident interview, clinical record review, staff interview and facility document review it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide respiratory care and services...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, clinical record review, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to evidence consistent communication to the hemodialysis ...
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, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain effective infection control for one of 28 residents in the survey sample, Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement a complete pain management program for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2021
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews and facility document review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was immediately repor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to submit an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for one of 34 residents...
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 staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete an annual CNA (certified nursing aide) performance review for one of five CNA record...
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, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined facility staff failed to store food in the kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
10 deficiencies
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 staff interview and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to accurately complete a MD...
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 resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facil...
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** 2. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #50's diagnoses included but were not limited to atrial fibrill...
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, and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide care ...
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 resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a drug regimen f...
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** Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure an exp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined facility staff failed to store food in a s...
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 resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. The facility staff failed to periodically review Resident #31's (or the resident's representative) decisions regarding advanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
- • 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Autumn Care Of Madison's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Virginia, 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 Autumn Care Of Madison Staffed?
CMS rates AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Virginia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Autumn Care Of Madison?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON during 2020 to 2025. These included: 31 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Autumn Care Of Madison?
AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON 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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 92 certified beds and approximately 83 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MADISON, Virginia.
How Does Autumn Care Of Madison Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Autumn Care Of Madison?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Autumn Care Of Madison Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON 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 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 Autumn Care Of Madison Stick Around?
Staff turnover at AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Virginia average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. 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 Autumn Care Of Madison Ever Fined?
AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON 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 Autumn Care Of Madison on Any Federal Watch List?
AUTUMN CARE OF MADISON 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.