BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Bridgeport Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of C, indicating it is average compared to other facilities, meaning it is not exceptional but also not the worst option. It ranks #18 out of 122 nursing homes in West Virginia, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #2 out of 6 in Harrison County, suggesting only one local option is better. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, which is a positive sign. Staffing is rated average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 36%, which is lower than the state average of 44%, indicating that staff are generally stable. However, the facility has faced some serious concerns, including a critical finding where a malfunctioning lock on a door posed a risk of serious injury or death to residents, and there were also concerns about the cleanliness of the kitchen and failure to provide timely vaccinations, which could affect resident health and safety. While there are strengths in staffing stability and an improving trend, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- C
- In West Virginia
- #18/122
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 36% turnover. Near West Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $8,021 in fines. Higher than 57% of West Virginia facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for West Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (36%)
12 points below West Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near West Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to submit a Five-Day Follow-Up Investigation report to the required agencies following an Initial Reporting of Allegations. This failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and observation the facility failed to post, in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents a list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numb...
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
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the required Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was issued in a timely fashion for one (1) of three ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 failed to honor a resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and hom...
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a written Notice of Transfer / Discharge was p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to coordinate with the appropriate, State-designated authority, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide proper care and treatment, including assistive devices, to prevent a decline, maintain, or improve the resident's c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident received the proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain his hearing abilities. This was a random ...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to deliver respiratory care services consistent with professional standards of practice. The physician's order for oxygen was not ...
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 record review, observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #9 who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, by d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide information, and/or offer the Respiratory Syncytial V...
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to have clean sanitized, steam table, freezer, refrigerators and dish room. This had the potential to affect all residents that get their...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
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, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment, over which it h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observations, medical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Pharmaceutical services of provision, monitoring and/or the use of medication-related devices we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic mediation had the appropriate diagnoses. This deficient practice was found for one (1) of five (5) re...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control standards for the disposal of soiled linen. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resid...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to prepare meal trays in a safe and sanitary manner. Staff wore ...
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
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain pharmacy related information, pertaining to the monthly medication regimen review, for each resident, that was readily acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and/or implement the care plan regarding showers for Resident #2 and #29. This was true for two (2) of four (4) residents r...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care for a dependent resident. This is true for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed dur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form for one (1) of 18 residents reviewed during the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide a safe, comfortable and homelike environment. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #36 Facility c...
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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (1) of 18 residents reviewed during the survey. Resident i...
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
.
c) Resident #26
Record review shows Resident #26 had an unwitnessed fall and hit her head on 02/28/22 at 4:50 PM. This fall required her to be transferred to a local hospital for further evaluation ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days or that the physician documented the duration of the P...
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 observations and staff interviews the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. The lids to dumpsters were not closed. This was a random opportunity for discovery that had t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice services to develop a coordinated care plan for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care...
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
- • 36% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Bridgeport Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within West 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 Bridgeport Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Bridgeport Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 27 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Bridgeport Healthcare Center?
BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 COMMUNICARE HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BRIDGEPORT, West Virginia.
How Does Bridgeport Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (36%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bridgeport Healthcare Center?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Bridgeport Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in West Virginia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Bridgeport Healthcare Center Stick Around?
BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 36%, which is about average for West 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 Bridgeport Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $8,021 across 1 penalty action. This is below the West Virginia average of $33,159. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Bridgeport Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
BRIDGEPORT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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.