TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER

2 HOSPITAL PLAZA, GRAFTON, WV 26354 (304) 265-0008
For profit - Corporation 60 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#8 of 122 in WV
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: December 2023

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Taylor Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #8 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the best option in Taylor County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2022 to 6 in 2023. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 33%, which is lower than the state average. While there are no fines on record, which is a positive sign, a concerning incident occurred where the facility failed to report alleged neglect cases involving residents within the required 24 hours. Additionally, cleanliness issues were noted, such as debris accumulation in the walk-in cooler. Overall, the center shows a mix of strengths in staffing and cleanliness, but there are areas that need attention to ensure the well-being of residents.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In West Virginia
#8/122
Top 6%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
33% turnover. Near West Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 45 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for West Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2022: 8 issues
2023: 6 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
  • Staff turnover below average (33%)

    15 points below West Virginia average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 33%

13pts below West Virginia avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

Dec 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

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 a resident had the right to be informed of, and partic...

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 ensure a resident had the right to be informed of, and participate in, her treatment. This was true for one (1) of 17 residents reviewed in the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier# 34. Facility census: 59. Findings included: a) Resident #34 A record review, completed on 12/19/23 at 7:41 PM, revealed: -Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. At that time, Resident #34 lacked capacity to make her own medical decisions and a family member was appointed Health Care Surrogate (HCS) / decision-maker for resident. -A Physician Determination of Capacity, dated 09/08/23, indicated Resident #34 had regained CAPACITY to make her own medical decisions. -On 12/07/23, verbal consent was accepted from the HCS for Resident #34 to receive the Influenza Vaccine -On an unknown date [the date was left blank on the consent form], verbal consent was accepted from the HCS for Resident to receive the 2023-2024 COVID-19 Vaccine. Record review revealed the vaccine had been administered on 11/21/2023. During an interview on 12/20/23 at 11:43 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #34 should have been approached, made aware of the risk/benefit of both vaccines, and been the one to provide consent for each vaccination.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify one (1) of three (3) resident's representative/family ...

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 notify one (1) of three (3) resident's representative/family member in a timely fashion of a significant change and the need to alter treatment. The facility transferred Resident #28 to the hospital on [DATE]. However, Resident #28's representative / family member was not notified of the transfer. Resident Identifier: #28. Facility Census: 59. Findings included: a) Resident #28 A medical record review, completed on 12/18/23 at 8:19 PM, revealed the following details: -A Nurses Note, dated 09/11/2023 at 6:00 PM, documented Resident #28 was going in and out of consciousness and 911 was called. -A second Nurses Note, dated 09/11/2023 at 6:01 PM, revealed resident's physician was contacted and updated on the resident's status. -A third Nurses Note, dated 09/11/2023 at 6:29 PM, documented the ambulance had arrived and report had been called to the hospital regarding resident's current status. -The eINTERACT Transfer form did not indicate the resident's representative had been notified of the transfer to the hospital and made aware of the clinical situation. During an interview, on 12/20/23 at 11:40 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the facility was unable to produce any evidence of Resident #28's representative/family member being notified of resident's change in condition and transfer to the hospital.
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 recorded reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the development of comprehensive person-centered care plans for three (3) of 17 residents. The care plans were not develop...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on recorded reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the development of comprehensive person-centered care plans for three (3) of 17 residents. The care plans were not developed in the areas of schizophrenia for Resident #5, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for Resident #10, and hospice services for Resident #37. Resident identifiers: #5, #10, and #37. Facility census: 59. Findings included: a) Resident #5 Medical record review, on 12/20/23 for Resident #5, revealed the comprehensive care plan had not been developed for the medical diagnosis of schizophrenia. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/20/23 at 10:12 AM, verified the care plan had not been developed for Resident #5's diagnosis of schizophrenia. b) Resident #10 During a medical record review on 12/20/23 for Resident #10, revealed the comprehensive care plan had not been developed for the medical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). An interview, with the DON on 12/20/23 at 10:30 AM, verified the care plan had not been developed for the diagnosis of PSTD for Resident #10. c) Resident #37 During a medical record review on 12/20/23 for Resident #37, it was discovered the care plan had not been developed to specify what days services would be provided by the hospice agency. An interview, with the DON on 12/20/23 at 3:10 PM, verified the care plan had not been developed to specify when hospice services would be provided.
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 maintain an accurate medical record for one (1) of 17 sampled...

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 accurate medical record for one (1) of 17 sampled residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey process. Resident identifier: #34. Facility census: 59. Findings included: a) Resident #34 A record review, completed on 12/19/23 at 7:41 PM, revealed: -Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. At that time, Resident #34 lacked capacity to make her own medical decisions and a family member was appointed Health Care Surrogate (HCS)/decision-maker for resident. -A Physician Determination of Capacity, dated 09/08/23, indicated Resident #34 had regained capacity to make her own medical decisions. -A nurse practitioner encounter note, dated 10/23/23, documented, [Resident #34's First Name] [Resident 34's Last Name] is an [AGE] year-old female who resides at [NAME] Health Care Center. She is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) and lacks medical decision-making capacity. -A nurse practitioner encounter note, dated 11/01/23, documented, [Resident #34's First Name] [Resident 34's Last Name] is an [AGE] year-old female who resides at [NAME] Health Care Center. She is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) and lacks medical decision-making capacity. --A nurse practitioner encounter note, dated 12/12/23, documented, [Resident #34's First Name] [Resident 34's Last Name] is an [AGE] year-old female who resides at [NAME] Health Care Center. She is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) and lacks medical decision-making capacity. During an interview, on 12/20/23 at 11:47 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the Physician Determination of Capacity completed in September indicated Resident #34 did indeed have capacity to make her own medical decisions. The DON acknowledged the nurse practitioner encounter notes on 10/23/23, 11/01/23, and 12/12/23 incorrectly listed Resident #34 as lacking medical decision-making capacity.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving neglect and/or mistreatment were reported, no later than 24 hours of the alleged event b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving neglect and/or mistreatment were reported, no later than 24 hours of the alleged event brought to the facility's attention, to appropriate state agencies as required. Residents #40, #50, #46, and #55. Facility Census: 59 Findings included: During a review of the facility grievance log for the last six (6) months the following four (4) alleged concerns were noted and addressed at the grievance level but were not reported to the appropriate state agencies. a) Resident #40 On 07/04/23 Resident #40 reported that Resident was upset and reported that staff are not changing her clothes when putting her to bed. Stated she ask to have pajamas put on and was told no and put to bed in her clothes. Resident #40 has a Brief Intermediate Mental Status Score of 15 and according the the Physicians' Determination of Capacity form dated 03/28/23, she has capacity to make her own decisions. b) Resident #50 On 07/24/23 Resident #50 reported that she heard staff mocking residents and saying they were tired of having to take care of residents . Resident #50 has a Brief Intermediate Mental Status Score of 14 and according the the Physicians' Determination of Capacity form dated 09/08/23, she has capacity to make her own decisions. c) Resident #46 On 07/14/23 Physical Therapy staff (Doctor of Physical Therapy) #18 reported that Resident #46 was found saturated with urine and feces and bed was saturated. Resident #46 has a Brief Intermediate Mental Status Score of 3 and according to the Physicians' Determination of Capacity form dated 10/16/23, he did not have capacity to make his own decisions. Record review shows he is dependent on staff for all his activities of daily living (ADL) care. d) Resident #55 On 11/14/23 Resident #55 reported Staff is turning off his call light when he rings. Resident #55 had a Brief Intermediate Mental Status Score of 15 and according the Physicians' Determination of Capacity form dated 10/14/23, the resident had capacity to make his own decisions. On 12/20/23 at 2:45 PM Social Services Designee #6 confirmed the above information and agreed they could possibly be considered as neglect or mistreatment and should have been reported to the appropriate states agencies immediately upon being informed of the allegations and prior to the investigation of each allegation.
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 interview the facility failed to ensure a walk-in cooler was cleaned to meet the professional standards for food service safety. During the kitchen tour it was discovere...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a walk-in cooler was cleaned to meet the professional standards for food service safety. During the kitchen tour it was discovered the floor of the walk-in cooler needed to be cleaned. This had the potential to affect any resident receiving nourishment from the kitchen. Facility census: 59 Findings included: a) Kitchen tour During the kitchen tour on 12/18/23 at 11:39 AM, it was discovered the walk-in cooler along the front side wall had an accumulation of brown crusted debris on the floor. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 12/18/23 at 1:10 PM, verified the crusted particles on the floor of the walk-in freezer needed cleaned.
Aug 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 medical record reviews and staff interview the facility failed to complete the Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) forms. This was discovered for two (2) of sixteen (16) resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record reviews and staff interview the facility failed to complete the Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) forms. This was discovered for two (2) of sixteen (16) residents reviewed for the area of Advance Directives. Residents #44 and #96 had incomplete POST forms. Resident identifiers: #44 and #96. Facility census: 51. Findings included: a) Resident #44 During a medical record review on 08/29/22, it was discovered the POST form was signed by Resident #44, but the signature was not dated. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 08/30/22 at 10:10 AM, verified Resident #44's signature was not dated. b) Resident #96 During a medical record review on 08/29/22, it was discovered the POST form for Resident #96 was not complete, there was no signature for the professional who assisted with completing the POST form. An interview with the NHA on 08/30/22 at 10:10 AM, verified the POST had no signature for the professional (Licensed Social Worker) who assisted with completing the POST form. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely notification was made to the physician after a change in condition was identified. This deficient practice had the po...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely notification was made to the physician after a change in condition was identified. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of falls. Resident identifier: #8. Facility census: 51. Findings included: a) Resident #8 Review of Resident #8's medical records showed a nursing note written on 5/13/2022 at 5:53 AM that stated as follows: .CNA [certified nursing assistant] alerted UCN [unit charge nurse] while resident being showered that bruising and swelling noted to right foot. UCN assessed right foot. Purple/Green bruising noted to top of right foot. Purple bruising noted to 2nd and 3rd digits right foot and purple bruising noted to right ankle. Resident voices discomfort with ambulation. Interventions in Place to Prevent Reoccurrence: Monitored resident frequently. Encouraged to ask for assistance. Physician/NP [Nurse Practitioner] and Decision-Maker Communication: Will provide report to oncoming shift to on call. There was no documentation in the medical record the physician or NP were notified regarding the swelling, bruising, and discomfort in Resident #8's foot. Further review of Resident #8's medical records showed a nursing note written on 5/14/22 at 11:43 AM that stated as follows: Resident Concern/Evaluation: Resident's right ankle-edema noted around ankle and top of foot +2, discoloration noted to ankle and top of foot. Resident denies pain at rest and during ambulation. Medical Provider Response/Order(s): [Nurse Practitioner's name] notified and gave order to get x-ray of ankle. Resident/Decision Maker Notification: [Medical Power of Attorney' name] notified and verbalized understanding. The x-ray showed a non-emergent fracture to the ankle, and follow-up orthopedic care was obtained. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 1:40 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no documentation a medical provider was notified about the swelling and bruising to Resident #8's foot until the day after the symptoms had been identified. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (D)

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, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services. This was true for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for re...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services. This was true for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for respiratory services during the investigation phase of the survey process. It was observed Resident #32 was not receiving oxygen therapy at the prescribed rate. Resident identifier: #32 Facility census: 51. Findings Included: a) Resident #32 During an observation on 08/30/22 at 8:08 AM, Resident #32's oxygen flow rate was at three (3) liter/minute (l/m) via nasal cannula. On 08/30/22 at 8:10 AM Licensed Practical Nurse LPN #48 acknowledged Resident #32 was receiving her oxygen at three (3) l/m. A review of Resident #32's orders verified the physician orders for oxygen was two (2) m/l. A Physicians order dated on 08/02/22, typed as written: Oxygen at two (2) l/m via intermittent to maintain sats >90% as needed. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and medical record review, the facility failed to provide specialize...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and medical record review, the facility failed to provide specialized eating utensils and specialized cup for residents at meal time. This was an random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifiers: #30 and #31. Facility Census: 51 Findings Included: a) Resident #30 During an breakfast observation on 08/30/22 at 8:14 AM, Resident #30 had received her breakfast tray, the residents drinks were served in regular cups and the resident was not eating with weighted utensils. The diet order meal ticket on tray stated. Adaptive Equipment: [NAME] Cup and Weighted Utensils During an interview on 08/30/22 at 8:14 AM Nurses Aide (NA) #9 acknowledged there was no Kennedy cup or weighted utensils on breakfast tray. NA stated she rarely receives them on her tray. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 8:15 AM Resident #30 stated I might get the utensils and cup once and twice a month. A medical record review reveled a physician order dated 10/20/21, Consistent Carbohydrate diet, regular texture, regular consistency, Weighted utensils and Kennedy cup for meals. b) Resident #31 Review of Resident #31's physician's orders showed an order written on 08/10/22 for Kennedy cups (cup with handle and lid) for drinks. During breakfast observation on 08/31/22 at 8:12 AM, the resident's meal tray was observed as it was being delivered to the resident by Nursing Assistant (NA) #42. The drinks were not in Kennedy cups. The resident's milk was in a glass without a handle. The resident's coffee was in a cup with a handle but no lid. NA #42 confirmed the resident's meal tray ticket stated Resident #31 was to have Kennedy cups. NA #42 stated she would obtain the cups for the resident. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
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 maintain sanitary condition of the outside garbage receptacle to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. This deficient practice h...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain sanitary condition of the outside garbage receptacle to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. This deficient practice has the potential to affect a limited number of residents that reside in the facility. Facility Census: 51 Findings Included: a) Outside garbage receptacle Observation made during the outside tour at 8:11 AM on 08/31/22, revealed a lid on the garbage receptacle was open, the area around the garbage receptacle had trash scattered about on the ground which included: used gloves, used masks, plastic silverware, toothbrushes, mouthwash bottles, full trash bags, undergarments, straws, straw papers, cereal bowls and empty orange juice containers. During an interview on 08/31/22 at 8:11 AM, the Administrator stated we will get it cleaned up right away. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0574 (Tag F0574)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, resident council meeting and staff interviews the facility failed to make accessible the ombudsman and the State Survey Agency contact information for Residents. This had the p...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, resident council meeting and staff interviews the facility failed to make accessible the ombudsman and the State Survey Agency contact information for Residents. This had the potential to affect an unlimited number of Residents. Resident Identifiers: #24, #38, #28, #16, #197, #198, #8, #97, #22, #17, #7, and #33. Facility Census: 51 Findings Included: a) Notifications Many observations made during the Long-Term Care Survey Process, the Resident Rights and contact information for the State Ombudsman and State Survey Agency contact information were not posted for the accessibility for the residents. During the Resident Council meeting held on 08/30/22 at 10:30 AM the Residents as a group were asked do you know where the ombudsman contact information is posted? The group stated, We do not how to contact ombudsman, we knew where it was posted in the old building, put not in this one. Another question asked during the Resident Council meeting have you been informed of your resident rights to formally complain to the State Agencies about the care you receive? The group stated, We know our rights as residents, but we don't know we the contact information is in this new building. On 8/30/22 at 10:58 AM, the Administrator acknowledged there was no contact information for the Ombudsman or the State Survey Agency posted in the facility and stated, we have only been here a month, I will try to find the board and put it up. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview and the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan by not providing an in-room activity calendar. This is...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview and the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan by not providing an in-room activity calendar. This is true for 4 of 16 resident review for the care area of care plan. Resident Identifiers: Resident #42, #22, #32, and #30. Facility Census: 51 Findings Included: a) Resident #42 During the initial tour of the facility on 08/29/22 observation found no monthly activity calendar posted in residents rooms. During a medical record review on 08/30/22 revealed Resident #42's care plan with a initiated date of 06/05/20 contained the following: Focus Statement: Resident #42's name will participate in most out of room activities. Goal Statement: Resident #42 name will remain active in out of room activities through next review date Interventions included: Provide calendar in room During an interview on 08/31/22 at 9:58 AM, the Activity Supervisor (AS), #32 stated calendars are to be in all the resident's rooms. When the care plan states provide calendar it means to provide a monthly activity calendar in the resident's room. b) Resident # 22 During the initial tour of the facility on 08/29/22 observation found no monthly activity calendar posted in residents rooms. During a medical record review on 08/30/22 revealed Resident #22's care plan with a initiated date of 12/16/17 and a revision date 09/07/21 contained the following: Focus Statement: Resident #22's name participates in most out of room activities. Goal Statement: Resident #22 name will remain active in out of room activities through next review date Interventions included: Provide calendar in room During an interview on 08/31/22 at 9:58 AM, the Activity Supervisor (AS) #32 stated calendars are to be in all the resident's rooms. When the care plan states provide calendar it means to provide a monthly activity calendar in the resident's room. c) Resident #32 During the initial tour of the facility on 08/29/22 observation found no monthly activity calendar posted in residents rooms. During a medical record review on 08/30/22 revealed Resident #32's care plan with a initiated date of 08/23/21 and revision date of 07/20/22 contained the following: Focus Statement: Resident #32's name is self-directed for activities in room daily per preference as she feels like it. Goal Statement: Resident #32 name will remain self-directed in room daily through next review date Interventions included: Provide calendar in room During an interview on 08/31/22 at 9:58 AM, the Activity Supervisor (AS) #32 stated calendars are to be in all the resident's rooms. When the care plan states provide calendar it means to provide a monthly activity calendar in the resident's room. d) Resident #30 During the initial tour of the facility on 08/29/22, observation found no monthly activity calendar posted in residents rooms. During a medical record review on 08/30/22 revealed Resident #30's care plan with a initiated date of 04/09/21 and revision date of 07/19/21 contained the following: Focus Statement: Resident #30's is at risk for social isolation. Goal Statement: Resident #30 name will actively participate in activities of interest of her choice in her room Interventions included: Provide activity calendar During an interview on 08/31/22 at 9:58 AM, the Activity Supervisor (AS) #32 stated calendars are to be in all the resident's rooms. When the care plan states provide calendar it means to provide a monthly activity calendar in the resident's room. .
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 interview, the facility failed to correctly document temperatures for the nourishment room refrigerator. This deficient practice has the potential to affect a limited...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to correctly document temperatures for the nourishment room refrigerator. This deficient practice has the potential to affect a limited number of residents that receive nutrients from the nourishment room. Facility Census: 51 Findings included: a) Nourishment Room An initial tour of the nourishment room with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/30/22 at 9:10 AM revealed the nourishment room refrigerator/freezer temperature log was void the temperatures for the following days: --08/29/22 AM Refrigerator temperature --08/29/22 AM Freezer temperature --08/30/22 AM Refrigerator temperature --08/30/22 AM Freezer temperature The DON stated the activity staff is to complete the temperature log for the refrigerator and freezer, and acknowledged the temperature log was not completed on 08/29/22 or 08/30/22. .
May 2021 6 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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) in the area of medications for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) in the area of medications for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #17. Facility census: 45. Findings included: a) Resident #17 Resident #17's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 03/03/21 documented the resident had received seven (7) days of anticoagulant medication during the look-back period. Review of Resident #17's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident had not received any medications during the look-back period that should have been recorded as an anticoagulant. During an interview on 05/11/21 at 10:49 AM, Clinical Care Supervisor (CCS) #40 stated she coded Resident #17's Pletal (cilostazol) as an anticoagulant. According to the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User ' s Manual, Do not code antiplatelet medications such as aspirin/extended release, dipyridamole, or clopidogrel here. Pletal's package insert, available on the Food and Drug Administration website, stated Pletal inhibited platelet aggregation. CCS #40 stated she would correct the MDS. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
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

. b) Resident # 34 Record review found the following diagnosis for Resident # 34: Cerebral infarction, Abnormal posture, Diabetes, Stiffness of the right knee, left hip, left ankle, multiple opened w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. b) Resident # 34 Record review found the following diagnosis for Resident # 34: Cerebral infarction, Abnormal posture, Diabetes, Stiffness of the right knee, left hip, left ankle, multiple opened wounds Bullous Pemphigoids, Atrial septal defect, and Acute Poliomyelitis. Resident # 34 was ordered a Fentanyl 25 mcg/hr. patch (used for pain relief) to be changed every 72 hours or three days. This patch was not replaced for five (5) days, from 2/10/21 to 2/15/21. The Fentanyl patch should have been replaced on 2/13/21. This medication is absorbed through the skin and is designed to be totally absorbed in 72 hours, therefore Resident # 34 was not receiving pain medication from the patch for approximately 48 hours or two days. On 05/11/21 at 1:10 PM, the Director of Nursing reviewed the controlled substance record, which verified the Fentanyl patch was not replaced for five days. The DON confirmed the Fentanyl patch was administered two (2) days late which was a failure to follow a physicians order. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (2) of 13 residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process. The facility failed to adequately document a change in condition leading to a hospital transfer for Resident #14. The facility failed to follow physician's orders for pain medication for Resident #34. Resident identifiers: #14, #34. Facility census: 45. Findings included: a) Resident #14 Review of Resident #14's medical records revealed a progress note written on 4/14/2021 at 5:57 PM which stated, Acute Care Transfer Note Patient is being transferred to: [hospital name]. Reason for Transfer: Bright red blood in vomit and stool. The hospital was notified of the patient's COVID-19 status: COVID-19 Negative. Physician/Practitioner Ordering this Transfer: Name and Designation: [medical provider's name and telephone number]. No other progress notes were written regarding the resident's change in condition. The Acute Care Transfer Form provided to the hospital upon transfer contained some additional information, such as current vital signs. However, the form did not contain additional information regarding Resident #14's bloody emesis and stool. During an interview on 05/12/21 at 10:34 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) agreed there was no further documentation regarding Resident #14's change in condition, such as when the change in condition had occurred or how many episodes of vomiting and bloody stool the resident had experienced. The DON stated she thought the change in condition had occurred suddenly and the resident was quickly transferred to the hospital. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
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 staff interview and record review the facility attending Physician failed to provide a rationale for extended use of a psychotropic medication as a PRN (give as needed) order. This occurred...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on staff interview and record review the facility attending Physician failed to provide a rationale for extended use of a psychotropic medication as a PRN (give as needed) order. This occurred on three separate occasions. This was true for one (1) out of five (5) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: Resident # 41. Facility census 45. Findings included: a) Resident #41 A review of Resident # 41's medical record found an order for Ativan 1 mg daily and an additional order for Ativan 0.5 mg PRN (give as needed) every 12 hours, start date 09/28/20. A facility form titled, Pharmacy note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, dated 10/13/2020, informed the Attending Physician the medication, Ativan 0.5 mg (a psychotropic medication) was due for review. These orders are limited to 14 days, but many be extended beyond 14 days provided rationale is documented and a time duration is specified. The Attending Physician wrote has been on med (medication) for many years and circled 90-day extension. The Attending Physician did not check agree, disagree, or other. On 1/13/21, again the Pharmacist wrote informing the Attending Physician the medication, Ativan 0.5 mg (a psychotropic medication). was due for review. These orders are limited to 14 days, but many be extended beyond 14 days provided rationale is documented and a time duration is specified. The Attending Physician wrote nothing to provide a rationale and circled 90-day extension. The Attending Physician did not check agree, disagree, or other. On 4/15/21, again the Pharmacist wrote informing Attending Physician the medication, Ativan 0.5 mg (a psychotropic medication) was due for review. These orders are limited to 14 days, but many be extended beyond 14 days provided rationale is documented and a time duration is specified. The Attending Physician wrote nothing to provide a rationale and circled 90-day extension. The Attending Physician checked agree. On 05/11/21 at 12:45 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) was asked about the, Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber pertaining to Resident # 41 receiving Ativan 0.5 mg PRN (as needed.) The DON stated, she would look for any other notes that might support the attending physicians order. At the close of the survey, no additional information had been provided. On 05/12/21 at 9:07 AM, A the attending Physician was interviewed. The physician stated, It is my fault. He said he should have written a rationale on the form and from now on he will write his rational for continuing the medication on the pharmacy form. .
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 interview, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner and maintain equipment in good working condition. During the kitchen tour for the Long Term Care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner and maintain equipment in good working condition. During the kitchen tour for the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP), it was discovered food was not dated after opening and the walk-in cooler needed repairs. This failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 45 Findings included: a) Food storage During the kitchen tour on 05/10/21 at 10:53 AM, it was discovered one (1) gallon of Buffalo Wing Sauce, one (1) gallon of Thick and Chunky Salsa and a bottle of steak sauce was not dated after opening. On 05/10/21 at 10:55 AM the Dietary Manager (DM) verified the sauces and salsa should have been dated after opening. b) Kitchen equipment On 05/10/21 at 10:56 AM, observation of the floor in the walk-in cooler found rust and missing paint. A review of the last Food Establishment Inspection Report by the Department of Health on 04/12/19 had a violation description: Floor to walk-in cooler needs repaired. In an interview with the DM on 05/10/21 at 11:00 AM, the DM verified the floor to the walk-in cooler had not been repaired. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. b) Resident #34 Review of the facility forms titled, Individual Residents Controlled Substance Record, found the controlled substance sheets for Resident #34 were noted to have many errors. A separa...

Read full inspector narrative →
. b) Resident #34 Review of the facility forms titled, Individual Residents Controlled Substance Record, found the controlled substance sheets for Resident #34 were noted to have many errors. A separate controlled substance sheet is supposed to be used for each single blister pack card containing the controlled substance. Names, dates and times are not legible on the controlled substance sheets. On many occasions the nurse administering the medication did not use the same card of medication and would sign it out on multiple sheets. This made it unclear and difficult to track and reconcile the controlled substance. For the medication, Gabapentin 30 capsules were received on 4/14/21, with directions to give one (1) capsules by mouth twice daily. --The first line had the name of a nurse, dated 4/13/21, timed 2100 (9:00 PM), removed one (1) capsule --Second line had the name of a nurse, dated 4/15/21, timed 11:31, removed one (1) capsule --Third line had the name of a nurse, dated 4/15/21, timed 2008 (8:08 PM), removed one (1) capsule. On the back side of a different controlled medication sheet, that was not filled out on the top to indicate when this medication card was received and the start of use of this card: --Line 27 was dated 4/13/21, timed 10:40, removed one (1) capsule --Line 28 was dated 4/13/21, timed 21:00 (9:00 PM), removed (1) capsule. --Line 29 was dated 4/14/21, timed 9:45, removed one (1) capsule. --Line 30 was dated 4/15/21, timed 2008 (9:08 PM). The signatures on this form were not legible. So it would appear that two (2) Gabapentin 100 mg's were removed and signed out on two separate sheets on 4/13/21 at 9:00 PM, and on 4/15/21 at 9:08 PM. On 5/11/21 at 9:00 AM, the Director of Nursing reviewed these discrepancies and confirmed there were issues with the way the nurses accounted for medications. Review of a controlled medication sheet for Gabapentin 100 mg to be given twice daily, received on 1/26/21 revealed that on 2/13/21 three (3) times this medication was removed with three (3) different times, 1000, 1030, and 8:22 PM. On 3/11/21 at 8:23 AM two separate sheets noted the medication was removed at the same time. On 5/12/21 at 10/:20 AM, the DON and the Administrator agreed the writing was not legible and hindered the ability to adequately monitor the controlled mediation sheets. The Administrator said they are working on a plan to change the way the nurses are removing the same medication from different cards instead of using one card at a time. The DON could not provide an answer regarding the removal of the same medications at the same date and time. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's medical records were accurate and complete. The Individual Residents Controlled Substance Records (Narcotic sheets) for Residents #30 and #34 were not complete and accurate according to professional standards. Resident identifiers: #30 and #34. Facility census: 45 Findings included: a) Resident #30 Review of Resident #30's narcotic sheets for Oxycodone- give one tablet every six (6) hours as needed found: --dates and times and signatures were not legible. -- marked out entries which were not legible -- missing dates and times The Narcotic sheets were reviewed with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/12/2021 at 11:30 AM. They both agreed the narcotic sheets were incomplete and not legible. They both acknowledged a complaint on possible diversion of narcotics was made and was found to be unfounded. They both agreed the narcotic sheets were difficult to follow at best and they had already started education and monitoring on this day with nursing staff. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 45. Findings included: a) Confidential Resident Interview #1 During an interview on 05/10/21 at 11:33 AM, Confidential Resident #1 stated food was seldom hot when it was served. She specifically stated that eggs served for breakfast were not served hot. b) Confidential Resident Interview #2 During an interview on at 05/10/21 at 11:59 AM, Confidential Resident #2 reported the food was ice cold when it arrived. c) Confidential Resident Interview #3 During an interview on 05/10/21 at 12:20 PM, Resident #3 reported food was not served hot. d) Food Temperature On 05/11/21 at 8:25 AM, Dietary Aide (DA)#73 completed a temperature check on the last breakfast tray delivered on the front hallway. She reported she was unable to obtain a temperature for the scrambled eggs. DA#73 reported the scrambled eggs were cold due to not being able to register a reading on the thermometer. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 05/11/21 at 8:30 AM, the NHA agreed serving cold food would not be appetizing or palatable for residents. .
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 B+ (85/100). 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.
  • • 33% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Taylor Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TAYLOR HEALTHCARE 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 Taylor Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Taylor Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2023. These included: 20 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Taylor Healthcare Center?

TAYLOR 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 59 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GRAFTON, West Virginia.

How Does Taylor Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Taylor 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 Taylor Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TAYLOR 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 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 Taylor Healthcare Center Stick Around?

TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 33%, 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 Taylor Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

TAYLOR HEALTHCARE 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 Taylor Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

TAYLOR 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.

TAYLOR HEALTHCARE CENTER

2 HOSPITAL PLAZA, GRAFTON, WV 26354 | (304) 265-0008

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
20
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing
  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025