OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Virginia Beach has a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates that it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #30 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the top facility among 13 in Virginia Beach City County. The facility is improving, with the number of reported issues dropping from 10 in 2021 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 40%, which is lower than the state average, indicating that staff members tend to stay long-term and are familiar with the residents' needs. While there have been no fines assessed, the inspector found several concerns, including failures in documentation regarding COVID-19 risk assessments, lack of updates to care plans for residents on psychotropic medications, and neglect in applying necessary hand rolls for a resident with severe contractures. Overall, while the facility shows strengths in staffing and improvement trends, families should be aware of the documented concerns that may impact resident care.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Virginia
- #30/285
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% 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 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
3 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
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility's staff failed to maintain dignity during mealtime for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #13), in the survey sample.
The findings included:
Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to post the most recent survey resul...
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 observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility's staff failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2021
10 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility's staff failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment at least every 92 days for one of 19 residents (Resident 5),...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to complete the required discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within the required timeframe after a death in the ...
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, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 19 residents (Residen...
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 observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews; the facility staff failed to administer oxygen (O2) as ord...
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** 2. The facility staff failed to revise Resident #6's comprehensive person-centered care plan to include the use of psychotropic ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews and facility document review the facility staff failed to apply ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis for Resident #4 included but not limited to Type II ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to do a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for 1 out of 19 residents, Resident #6 in the survey sampl...
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** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview and the facility document review, the facility staff failed to document an ongoing facility wide risk assessment to include their current population of two (2) CO...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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, clinical record review and complaint investigation, the facility staff faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review, clinical record review and complaint investigation, the facility staff faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review, clinical record review and complaint investigation, the facility staff faile...
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 a medication pass and pour observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff administer medic...
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Virginia.
- • 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.
- • 40% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Our Lady Of Perpetual Help's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Our Lady Of Perpetual Help Staffed?
CMS rates OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Our Lady Of Perpetual Help?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP during 2019 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Our Lady Of Perpetual Help?
OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 30 certified beds and approximately 29 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia.
How Does Our Lady Of Perpetual Help Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Our Lady Of Perpetual Help?
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 Our Lady Of Perpetual Help Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP 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 5-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 Our Lady Of Perpetual Help Stick Around?
OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Our Lady Of Perpetual Help Ever Fined?
OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP 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 Our Lady Of Perpetual Help on Any Federal Watch List?
OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP 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.