HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Heritage Hall Tazewell has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. They rank #257 out of 285 in Virginia, placing them in the bottom half of nursing homes statewide, and #2 out of 3 in Tazewell County, meaning only one local option is better. While the facility’s trend is improving-issues decreased from 13 in 2024 to 4 in 2025-there are still serious concerns, including $107,650 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Virginia facilities, suggesting compliance problems. Staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 39%, lower than the state average of 48%, but RN coverage is concerning, as they have less RN support than 88% of similar facilities. Specific incidents include a failure to ensure smoking safety for several residents, improper storage of expired medications, and not administering prescribed treatments to residents, all of which raise red flags about the overall care and attention residents receive.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Virginia
- #257/285
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $107,650 in fines. Lower than most Virginia facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 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
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Virginia average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
4 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility st...
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
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care according to the medical pr...
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 resident and staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to provide wound care as ordered to o...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure medical provider ordered medication was available for administra...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
10 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
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure personal privacy related to written communications for one (1) of 35 sampled residents (Resid...
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 staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to complete an annual (comprehensive) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 12 months or 366 days of the previous annu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 3 months or 92 days of the previous quarterly MDS assessm...
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 staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to accurately document the completion dates of resident interview sections of Minimum Data Se...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the baseline care plan included dietary orders for 1 of 32 residents in the survey sample, Resident #1...
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to include the resident in their care plan meeting for one (1) of 35 sampled residents (Resident #1...
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. For Resident #152, the facility staff failed to complete a nursing assessment, address code status, or obtain a weight follow...
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 observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide care and treatment according to medical provider o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 35 residents in the survey sample, Resid...
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 staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the daily nurse staffing postings included the required resident census information for 11 of 36 days reviewe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration for 1 of 5 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
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to obtain a physician order laboratory test for 1 of 5 residents, Resident #4.
The finding included:
For Resident #1 the f...
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
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for 2 of 5 residents, Resident #4 and Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide activities of daily living care (ADL) for 1 of 27 residents, Resident #138.
Resident #138's fin...
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 observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to dispose of expired medications stored in 2 of 4 medication storage rooms and 1 of 6 medication carts.
The facility staff failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2019
2 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and during a medication pass and pour observation, the facility staff failed t...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a medication was labeled per their policy and procedure on 1 of 4 stati...
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
- • 39% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $107,650 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $107,650 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Virginia. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Heritage Hall Tazewell's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Heritage Hall Tazewell Staffed?
CMS rates HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below 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 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 Heritage Hall Tazewell?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 19 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Heritage Hall Tazewell?
HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL 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 HERITAGE HALL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 157 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TAZEWELL, Virginia.
How Does Heritage Hall Tazewell Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heritage Hall Tazewell?
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 Heritage Hall Tazewell Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Heritage Hall Tazewell Stick Around?
HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL 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 Heritage Hall Tazewell Ever Fined?
HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL has been fined $107,650 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.2x the Virginia average of $34,155. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Heritage Hall Tazewell on Any Federal Watch List?
HERITAGE HALL TAZEWELL 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.