FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER

1325 LOCUST AVENUE, FAIRMONT, WV 26554 (304) 534-7810
Non profit - Corporation 30 Beds WVU MEDICINE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#3 of 122 in WV
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Fairmont Medical Center in Fairmont, West Virginia, has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating a high level of care and reliability. It ranks #3 out of 122 facilities in the state, placing it in the top tier of nursing homes, and holds the #1 position out of 6 in Marion County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 5 in 2023 to just 1 in 2025, suggesting a commitment to enhancing care standards. Staffing is a strength, with a solid 4 out of 5 stars and an impressive 0% turnover rate, meaning that staff are stable and familiar with residents' needs. However, there have been concerns, such as water temperatures being excessively hot in resident bathrooms, which could pose a burn risk, and the failure to adhere to a grievance policy that lacks necessary contact information for filing complaints. Overall, while there are some areas for improvement, the facility's strengths make it a strong candidate for families seeking care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In West Virginia
#3/122
Top 2%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 146 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of West Virginia nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: WVU MEDICINE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

Aug 2025 1 deficiency
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 record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards by not following physicians orders for pain medication administration. This fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards by not following physicians orders for pain medication administration. This failed practice was found true for (1) one of (5) five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident Identifier #45. Facility Census 17. Findings include: a) Resident #45 A record review on 08/19/25 at 1:00 PM, revealed an as needed (PRN) order for Resident #45 for Tramadol 50 Milligram (mg) tablets up to 3 times per day for pain indication of severe numbered as (7) seven to 10. Further record review of Resident #45's pain indicators and Medication Administration Record (MAR) from admission to present revealed the following:On 07/24/25 at 11:10 PM, pain Level 6, was administered Tramadol.On 07/26/25 at 12:42 AM, pain level 5, was administered Tramadol.On 07/31/25 at 10:02 PM, pain level 5, was administered Tramadol.On 08/04/25 at 8:45 PM, pain level 6, was administered Tramadol.On 08/06/25 at 9:21 PM, pain level 6, was administered Tramadol.On 08/08/25 at 10:36 PM, pain level 6, was administered Tramadol.On 08/09/25 at 8:54 PM, pain level 4, was administered Tramadol.On 08/10/25 at 4:07 PM, pain level 6, was administered Tramadol.On 08/15/25 at 8:54 PM, pain level 5, was administered Tramadol. During an interview on 08/19/25 at approximately 2:00 PM, The Nursing Manager (NM), confirmed that the PRN Tramadol was not given as ordered according to the pain scale. NM further stated, I am starting education on this now.
Oct 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to establish a grievance policy which included the required information as set forth in 42 CFR 483.10(j)(4)(i). The facility's grievance...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to establish a grievance policy which included the required information as set forth in 42 CFR 483.10(j)(4)(i). The facility's grievance policy failed to include the contact information of the grievance official with whom a grievance could be filed, the business address (mailing and email) and business phone number. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 2. Findings included: a) 42 CFR 483.10(j)(4)(i) Revised as of 02/03/23 483.10(j)(4) states the facility must establish a grievance policy to ensure the prompt resolution of all grievances regarding the residents' rights contained in this paragraph. Upon request, the provider must give a copy of the grievance policy to the resident. The grievance policy must include: (i) . the contact information of the grievance official with whom a grievance can be filed, that is, his or her name, business address (mailing and email) and business phone number . b) The Facility's Policy and Procedure Concern/Grievance Policy Review of the Policy and Procedure Concern/Grievance Policy, with an effective date of 09/01/23, revealed the Director of LTC (Long-Term Care) Services, also known as the Administrator, would serve as the responsible party for overseeing the grievance process. It also indicated a description of the procedure for voicing concerns/grievances would be on each side of the unit in a prominent location. Nowhere in the grievance policy itself did it list the Administrator's contact information, business address (mailing and email) and business phone number. The form posted on the information board on the unit provided the Administrator's telephone number and extension. The posted form did list the Administrator's business address (mailing and email) and business phone number. During an interview, on 10/04/23 at 9:40 AM, the Administrator acknowledged both the facility's grievance policy and the form providing a description of the procedure for voicing concerns/grievances that was posted on the information board on the unit failed to provide an address (mailing and email) and a business phone number. The Administrator stated, I will address that right now.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

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 maintain an antibiotic stewardship program with an effective i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program with an effective infection assessment tool for monitoring antibiotic use for one (1) of one (1) resident receiving antibiotic therapy. Resident identifier: #2. Facility census: 2. Findings included: a) Resident #2 Record review showed an order for the following antibiotics to be administered: Levofloxacin Tablet 750 mg oral every 24 hours; Metronidazole 500 mg tablet oral twice a day. The antibiotics were ordered by the infectious disease doctor following the complex outpatient oral antimicrobial therapy consult on [DATE]. The medication was prescribed for a polymicrobial sacral decubitus ulcer status post excisional debridement. The stop date was to be [DATE] reflecting four weeks following surgery. The final determination was to be determined in the Infectious Disease (ID) clinic. Resident #2 had a follow-up appointment scheduled for [DATE] at 1:40 PM in the ID clinic that was canceled by Resident's daughter. Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 9:55 AM, the Director of Nursing clarified she was not the designated Infection Preventionist for the facility, that her certification had expired. The DON (Registered Nurse/RN #30) was the Infection Preventionist (IP). The DON was asked for a Line Listing and stated, We do not have one, no one [resident] needs it. The DON was then asked how they were tracking Resident #2's wound infection and antibiotic administration? The DON replied, Oh yea, guess we should have one for that. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:15 AM, the designated Infection Preventionist (IP) was asked what criteria was used for antibiotic stewardship? The IP replied, Not sure about that. I guess we let the physician know what is needed and he takes care of it from there. The pharmacy may keep a list. The IP further stated, We have an infectious disease committee. The pharmacy monitors the antibiotics, I am sure. On [DATE] at 10:30 AM, Surveyor received Infection Control Tracking log from the IP that indicated the Resident was receiving Vancomycin and Moxifloxacin. The tracking log contained no details of the antibiotic start date/end date or dosage. This was the medication the Resident was receiving prior to admission at another rehab facility. On [DATE] at 11:00 AM, RN #20 verified Vancomycin and Moxifloxacin were never given to Resident #2 while in the facility. On [DATE] at 11:22 AM Surveyor received a second Infection Control Tracking log from IP. The log indicated the antibiotic being used for Treatment was Levofloxacin and Flagyl. No medication dose was indicated on the log, no start date, and no indication of projected end date for the antibiotic. On [DATE] at 11:26 AM the DON acknowledged that she had informed the IP the 1st line listing emailed to Surveyor contained the incorrect antibiotics being given and it needed corrected. During an interview, on [DATE] at 1:33 PM, the IP was asked why the line listing for the antibiotic therapy was changed to reflect the correct information. The IP stated, We don't have a line listing for acute care, and I wasn't looking at the correct information. This is all new to me. During an interview on the [DATE] at 11:30 AM the Administrator verified and agreed the line listing for infection tracking was not being done properly, if at all. The Administrator stated, We have a lot of work to do in this area, we have to get our infection control program up and running better.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure bathrooms, accessible to residents, had a call light system available at the toilet. Facility census: 2. Findings included: a) O...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure bathrooms, accessible to residents, had a call light system available at the toilet. Facility census: 2. Findings included: a) Observation of two (2) rooms side by side, on Section 216-230 hallway found rooms with the signage, Private. Each room contained a toilet and a hand sink. The doors were not locked. Observation found there was no call system available in either bathroom. On 10/03/23 at approximately 11:55 AM, the administrator acknowledged residents could access both bathrooms. The administrator said the doors were going to be locked and a key could be obtained from the nurses' station to use the bathrooms. At 3:31 PM on 10/04/23, the administrator said pull call cords were going to be installed beside the toilets.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible. This practice affected all residents at the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible. This practice affected all residents at the facility. Resident identifiers: #1 and #2. Facility census: 2. Findings included: Water temperatures were obtained at 12:25 PM on 10/02/23 with Maintenance #31. The temperature in the hand sink of Resident #1's room was 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature at the hand sink in Resident's #2's room was 117 degrees Fahrenheit. While checking the temperatures, Resident #2 said, Yes that water is very hot. I have to be really careful. The girls make sure and adjust my water when I use it. At 12:43 PM on 10/02/23, the Administrator said the water temperature was being corrected. On the morning of 10/03/23, at approximately 10:30 PM, Maintenance #31 said the temperatures were adjusted. Maintenance #31 said he just learned yesterday that each resident room had its own mixing valve under the hand sink that could be adjusted by popping off a cover and adjusting with a wrench. The temperature of the water at the hand sinks of both Residents #1 and #2 was 107 degrees Fahrenheit.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to prevent the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission diseases and infections. The facility did not conduct an annual review of the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) policies. This failed practice had the potential to affect all Residents. Facility census: 2 Findings included: During an interview on 10/02/23 at 10:15 AM the designated Infection Preventionist (IP) was asked to review and verify the following Infection Prevention and Control polices for accuracy. The IP verified the polices were the current policies being used and the review/revised dates were accurate: Record review of the facility's policy titled, Muti-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDROS) (MRSA VRE CRE ESBLS ETC.), showed a revised and review date of 01/22/22. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Standard Precautions, showed a revised date of 05/22 and review date of 06/19. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Isolation (Transmission-Based) Precautions, showed a revised and review date of 03/01/2022. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Outbreak Investigation, showed a revised and review date 03/01/22. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, showed a revised and review date 11/19/20. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Tuberculosis (TB) Control Plan, showed a revised and review date 05/02/2022. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) Influenza Triage Protocol Order, showed a revised and review date 04/21/2022. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Respiratory Etiquette, showed a revised and review date 04/26/22. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Clostridioides Difficile (C.Diff) showed a revised and review date 02/01/22. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene Policy showed a revised and review date 03/01/2022. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Guidelines for Employees with Infectious Diseases, showed a revised and review date 09/28/22. During an interview on 10/03/23 at 3:38 PM, the Director of Nursing and Administrator both reviewed the IPCP polices and verified they were not reviewed within the annual requirement. The Administrator stated, This should have been caught earlier, I will make sure the policies are updated and reviewed ASAP. I can't believe the IP did not recognize this noncompliance.
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 West 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 West 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 Fairmont Medical Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Fairmont Medical Center Staffed?

CMS rates FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Fairmont Medical Center?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 5 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Fairmont Medical Center?

FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by WVU MEDICINE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 30 certified beds and approximately 20 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FAIRMONT, West Virginia.

How Does Fairmont Medical Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Fairmont Medical Center?

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 Fairmont Medical Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER 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 West 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 Fairmont Medical Center Stick Around?

FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER 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 Fairmont Medical Center Ever Fined?

FAIRMONT MEDICAL CENTER 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 Fairmont Medical Center on Any Federal Watch List?

FAIRMONT MEDICAL 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.