MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
McDowell Healthcare Center in Gary, West Virginia has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates it is slightly above average but not exceptional. With a state rank of #32 out of 122, the facility is in the top half of nursing homes in West Virginia, and it stands as the only option in McDowell County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 9 in 2024. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 40%, which is lower than the state average but indicates that some staff do leave. On the downside, the facility has been fined $7,443, which is average, but concerningly, it has less RN coverage than 92% of state facilities, meaning residents may not receive the high level of nursing oversight they need. Specific incidents include a failure to allow a resident to return after a hospital stay, leading to emotional distress and longer hospitalization, and multiple residents had outdated or incorrect diagnoses on their pre-admission screenings. While McDowell Healthcare Center has some strengths, such as being the only local option and maintaining decent ratings, families should be aware of its staffing challenges and recent issues.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In West Virginia
- #32/122
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near West Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $7,443 in fines. Higher than 67% of West Virginia facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for West Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
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 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 25 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
9 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 properly investigate and make prompt efforts to resovle a grievance from Resident #19. This was true for 1 (one) of 1 (one) resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to update the care plan for a new diagnosis. This was true for three (3) out of 30 residents reviewed during the long-term car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident environment, ove...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor Resident #30, #29, and #82 for side effects of antid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medical records for each resident were accurately documented for two (2) of five (5) records reviewed. The facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on facility records review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure to have all the required signatures and attendees and signatures for their Quality Assurance Performance Improvemen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to update the [NAME] Virginia Department of Health and H...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 ensure the correct diagnoses on the Pre-admission Screening...
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
.
This will be cited as past noncompliance because the facility identified what had happened and took immediate steps to correct the failure to ensure it does not recur. All components of the plan of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience. This was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect a limited number of re...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
b) Observation of the kitchen
Observation on 09/12/23 at 8:15 A.M., found a box of spoiled lettuce and spoiled cabbage in separate boxes in the refrigerator walk in.
An interview was conducted on 09/...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interviews and observation the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. This was a random opportunity fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
3 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, family interview, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility following a hospital admission. This deficient pr...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on record review, family interview, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to send a notice of discharge to a hospital resident who was not permitted to return to the fac...
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
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide written information regarding the facility's bed hold policy. This was true for 12 of 20 residents reviewed for dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
9 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 failed to ensure all residents were provided a dignified existence. The failed to provide a privacy cover on the Foley catheter collection bag. ...
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, clean, comfortable and homelike environment by not providing a clean, and safe ventilation wall unit for Resident #23....
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 medical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to timely submit a correct discharge tracking Minimum Data Sets (MDS) for : Resident # 89. The MDS was inaccurate in the area ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 a care plan that included non-pharmacological interventions for a resident who was receiving a PRN (as needed) medication fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to revise the care plan for Resident #84's dialysis information. In addition the facility failed to revise Resident #66's care plan whe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide urinary catheter care in accordance with the current professional standards of care. This was a random opportunity for discove...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the attending physician provided a rationale for a pharmacy recommendation they declined. This failed practice was true for o...
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
.
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to store food in a safe manner. There was opened foods stored in the kitchen walk in freezer that were not labeled as to when the foods w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 ensure the dialysis order for Resident #84 was correct and f...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2021
1 deficiency
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
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to fo...
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
- • 40% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Mcdowell Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MCDOWELL 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 Mcdowell Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mcdowell Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Mcdowell Healthcare Center?
MCDOWELL 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 120 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GARY, West Virginia.
How Does Mcdowell Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, 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 Mcdowell Healthcare 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 Mcdowell Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE 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 4-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 Mcdowell Healthcare Center Stick Around?
MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Mcdowell Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
MCDOWELL HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the West Virginia average of $33,153. 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 Mcdowell Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
MCDOWELL 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.