WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU

600 W RIDGE RD, WYTHEVILLE, VA 24382 (276) 228-0200
For profit - Corporation 8 Beds LIFEPOINT HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#57 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: December 2022

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Wythe County Community Hospital ECU has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating a high level of care and reliability for residents. Ranked #57 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, they are in the top half, and they stand out as the top facility in Wythe County. The trend is improving, with their issues decreasing from 3 in 2020 to none reported in 2022. While staffing has a concerning rating of 0 out of 5 stars, the turnover rate is exceptionally low at 0%, which means staff members are likely to be experienced and familiar with the residents. Notably, there have been no fines, and the facility has a history of serious incidents, such as failing to properly store food items, which risks foodborne illness, and discrepancies in patient discharge records, which could affect care continuity. Overall, while the facility has strengths in its trustworthiness and improving trend, the staffing and specific incidents warrant careful consideration.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Virginia
#57/285
Top 20%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2020: 3 issues
2022: 0 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: LIFEPOINT HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

Feb 2020 3 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

Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for 1 of 7 records, Resident # 7. The findings included: The dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for 1 of 7 records, Resident # 7. The findings included: The discharge MDS was coded that Resident #7 was discharged to an acute care hospital when the resident was actually discharged home with home health services. Resident #7's closed electronic clinical record was reviewed on 02/06/2020. The physician's discharge summary listed the resident's diagnoses that included, but not limited to, physical therapy and occupational therapy strengthening status post hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease stage 3 to 4. The discharge MDS with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/20/19 noted in Section C (Cognitive Patterns) that Resident #7 had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 6 out of 15. In Section A (Type of Assessment) the resident's discharge was described as planned and return was not anticipated. Also in Section A (Identification Information), the MDS noted Resident #7 was discharged to an Acute Hospital. The clinical record included a nurse's note dated 11/20/19 that indicated Resident #7, with their medical power of attorney, were given discharge instructions, education and prescriptions before being escorted by staff via wheelchair to the facility's front entrance for discharge. The clinical record also included a discharge summary that read within the Hospital Course that Resident #7 would be discharged home with home health. The discharge summary was written and electronically signed by a nurse practitioner and also electronically signed by the attending physician. The facility's administrator was interviewed on 2/06/2020 at 10:40 a.m. regarding the inaccurate MDS concern. The administrator stated that none of the facility's MDS coordinators were available at the time to be interviewed; the MDS coordinator who filled out Resident #7's discharge MDS was out sick. The administrator recalled Resident #7 and remembered the resident leaving the facility with family after being discharged home with home health services. After viewing the MDS, the administrator acknowledged the MDS read that Resident #7 was discharged to an acute hospital. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to exit.
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 the facility staff failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care by following physician's orders for medication administration for 1 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care by following physician's orders for medication administration for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #107). The findings included: The facility staff failed to wait 6 hrs between two doses of Ultram which was ordered every 6 hrs prn (as needed) and failed to administer Lipitor in the evening as ordered for Resident #107. Resident #107's electronic clinical record was reviewed on 02/05/2020. Diagnoses noted within physician documentation included but were not limited to cerebrovascular accident (CVA - stroke), neurosarcoidosis (long-term inflammatory disease affecting the nervous system), left side weakness, and severe right lower weakness. Resident #107 was a new admission and therefore no MDS (minimum data set) was reviewed. The resident was alert and oriented on 02/05/2020. Physician orders included but were not limited to: 1. Tramadol Tab (Ultram Tab) 50mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain (pain scale 4-10). 2. Atorvastatin Tab (Lipitor Tab) 80mg by mouth every night at bedtime. The electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) provided documentation that Resident #107 received Ultram 50mg by mouth on 02/04/2020 three times. The first time at 7:15 a.m. for a pain scale of 4, the second time at 11:36 a.m. for a pain scale of 6, and the third time at 9:20 p.m. for a pain scale of 4. There was 4 hours and 21 minutes between the first and second dose instead of 6 hours that was ordered. The eMAR provided documentation that Resident #107 received Lipitor 40mg by mouth on 01/26/2020 at 9:02 a.m. even though the medication was ordered to be given at bedtime. The facility's administrator was informed of these medication administration concerns on 02/05/2020 at approximately 4:30 p.m. The administrator acknowledged the eMAR showed there was less than 6 hrs between the first two doses of Ultram on 02/04/2020 and Lipitor was given in the morning of 01/26/2020 (9:02 a.m.) instead of the ordered bedtime (scheduled for 9:00 p.m.). The facility's administrator was interviewed on 02/06/2020 at 11:53 a.m. regarding the medication administration time concerns. The administrator had spoken with the nurse who had administered the medications and there was no more information provided. No further information regarding the medication administration times was provided to the survey team prior to exit.
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 and staff interview, the facility staff failed to store food and items used to prepare food in a manner to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness. As evidenced by outdated item...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to store food and items used to prepare food in a manner to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness. As evidenced by outdated items in the kitchen area and nesting of wet pans. The findings included: The facility kitchen included 7 containers of out of date water chestnuts, 18-gallon jugs of out of date water, and nesting of wet pans. Two surveyors entered the facility kitchen (dietary department) on 02/05/2020 at approximately 11:00 a.m. The registered dietician (RD) accompanied the surveyors on this observation. Surveyor #1 identified the following issues. Eighteen-gallon jugs of water with a best buy date of 12/27/2019. The RD verbalized to the surveyor that the jugs of water were not for oral consumption, they knew they were out of date, and they were going to discard them. However, the jugs of water were stored with items that were currently being used in the facility kitchen. This surveyor also observed metal baking pans turned upside down and stacked on top of each other. The surveyor visualized water droplets on the outside of one of these pans. When brought to the attention of the RD, the RD stated they should have been placed on a drying rack and they would have them redone. Surveyor #2 identified 7 cans of water chestnuts labeled best before 12/2019. After reviewing the date on the container dietary staff person #1 stated these were expired. When asked who was responsible for discarding expired items the RD verbalized to the surveyors that it was everyone responsibility to identify out of date products and they used the process First in first out. On 02/06/2020 at 9:53 a.m., surveyor #1 made a second observation of the dietary department. The 18-gallon jugs of water remained on the same shelf in the dietary department. On 02/06/2020 at 12:08 p.m., Registered nurse #1 was made aware of the issues in the kitchen area. No further information regarding these issues were provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference on 02/06/2020.
Dec 2018 3 deficiencies
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, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store medications on 1 of 1 units the extended care unit. The findings included: The facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store medications on 1 of 1 units the extended care unit. The findings included: The facility failed to store insulin and a sodium chloride flush per their facility policy. On 12/11/18 at 12:19 p.m., the surveyor observed a box labeled humulin R insulin on the Residents over the bed table. Inside this box, the surveyor observed an open vial of humulin R insulin. Resident #54 stated she had received insulin earlier. On 12/11/18 at 2:07 p.m., the surveyor observed a syringe of sodium chloride used for flushing IV's on the Residents over the bed table. On 12/12/18 10:14 a.m., the surveyor spoke with RN (registered nurse) #1 regarding the insulin and sodium chloride flush at bedside. RN #1 stated the medications should not have been left at the bedside. On 12/12/18, RN #1 provided the surveyor with the facility policy/procedure titled, Medication Administration/Review ECU (extended care unit). This policy/procedure read in part, .To establish guidelines for proper administration of medications in the Extended Care Unit .All resident's medications will be stored in the resident's drawer of the ECU medication cart . The administrative staff were notified of the issues regarding the medications on 12/12/18 at 12:22 p.m. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the surveyor prior to the exit conference.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview the facility staff failed to notify the Ombudsman of Resident transfers or discharges. The findings included: The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman when a Resident was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview the facility staff failed to notify the Ombudsman of Resident transfers or discharges. The findings included: The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman when a Resident was transferred or discharged . On 12/12/18 at 11:15 a.m., during an interview with RN (registered nurse) #1 regarding Resident discharges RN #1 verbalized to the surveyor that that they do not notify the Ombudsman of transfers and/or discharges and she was not aware of the regulation. The administrative staff were notified of the issue regarding the Ombudsman notification on 12/12/18 at 12:22 p.m. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the surveyor prior to the exit conference.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview and employee record review, the facility staff failed to provide dementia training for 5 of 5 aides who worked on the extended care unit. The findings included: The facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and employee record review, the facility staff failed to provide dementia training for 5 of 5 aides who worked on the extended care unit. The findings included: The facility did not provide dementia management training. The surveyor requested the facility to provide evidence of training to include dementia management training. On 12/12/18 at 9:45 a.m., during an interview with the HRD (human resource director). The HRD verbalized to the surveyor that they had 5 aides that worked on the ECU (extended care unit) and she did not think they had done anything regarding dementia management training. The administrative staff were notified of the concerns regarding dementia training on 12/12/18 at 12:22 p.m. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the surveyor prior to the exit conference.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). 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.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU 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 Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu Staffed?

Detailed staffing data for WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU is not available in the current CMS dataset.

What Have Inspectors Found at Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU during 2018 to 2020. These included: 4 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu?

WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU 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 LIFEPOINT HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 8 certified beds and approximately 2 residents (about 25% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WYTHEVILLE, Virginia.

How Does Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu?

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 Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU 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 Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu Stick Around?

WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu Ever Fined?

WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU 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 Wythe Cnty Community Hosp Ecu on Any Federal Watch List?

WYTHE CNTY COMMUNITY HOSP ECU 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.