LINDSIDE HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Lindsay Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average, which means it may provide decent care but has room for improvement. The facility ranks #28 out of 122 in West Virginia, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and is the only nursing home option in Monroe County. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 8 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, which is a strength, but the turnover rate is concerning at 62%, notably higher than the state average of 44%. Fortunately, there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, and the facility offers more RN coverage than 88% of West Virginia nursing homes. However, there have been some serious concerns raised, including a failure to thoroughly investigate incidents of abuse between residents and not following proper cleaning procedures for disinfectants. These issues highlight the need for families to weigh both the strengths and weaknesses of the facility carefully.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In West Virginia
- #28/122
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for West Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
16pts above West Virginia avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
14 points above West Virginia average of 48%
The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
11 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
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to make choices about aspects of life that is important to one (1) of three (3) residents review...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 the representative/family of an acute hospitalization. ...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
b) Resident #1
On 08/21/24 at approximately 10:00 AM, a review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 10/20/2024 was conducted revealing that on the evening of 10/20/2024 at 6:15 PM, Licensed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative notice of the b...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interview. The facility failed to assist dependent Residents with activities of dail...
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
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to follow a physician's order to be notified of blood sugar greater than 400 for Resident #23. This was true for 1 (one) of 1 (one) resid...
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, interviews with facility staff, and a review of facility policy and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices that c...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement the facility Policy and Procedure entitled, West Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation by failing to thoroughly inves...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
c) Resident #1
On 08/21/24 at approximately 10:00 AM, a review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 10/20/2024 was conducted revealing that on the evening of 10/20/2024 at 18:15 PM, Licensed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 provide evidence a resident/resident's representative...
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 F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c) Resident #157
During an interview on 08/19/24 at 3:21 PM, Resident #157 stated he received PRN (as needed) oxycodone for pain...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
3 deficiencies
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 F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and Resident council meeting. The facility failed to meet the needs and Preferences of each resident, through an ongoing program to support r...
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 F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on employee record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure all dietary staff had a food handlers' card, to ensure the safe handling of the food for the Residents. This failed p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 most or all residents
.
Based on staff interview, observation, and facility documents the facility failed to ensure the facility cleaning solution used to disinfect was used in accordance with manufacture directions. This ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 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
Deficiency F0559
(Tag F0559)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to honor the Resident's rights by not providing a written notice prior for a Residents room change. This is true for two...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy, and staff interview the facility failed to provide evidence that a Transfer Notice was ...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, staff, and resident interview the facility failed to ensure medication used in the treatment of diabetes was available for administration. This failed practice was...
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
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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 implement and follow the specified pain parameters described ...
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
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and Resident interviews, the facility failed to provide Residents with evening snacks. This is true for 11 of 23 Residents requiring evening snacks. Resident ide...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an extra over-the-bed table for meals to prevent further injury due to spilled tray which cause ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Physicians Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form was completed by the appropriate designee for one (1) of two (2) residen...
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
.
Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow the physician orders for Resident #109 with a order for Lidocaine patches without a dosage and Resident...
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
.
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment was as free of accident hazards as possible. Unit 3/4 medication cart was left unlocked and unatten...
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 medical record review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record. The facility failed to document Resident #6's bathing ta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on record review, resident council meeting, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement an ongoing resident centered activities program designed to meet the inter...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to have two (2) licensed nurses to sign off at the beginning and ending of the shift to verify the control substances were acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the consultant pharmacist failed to complete a medication regimen review every thirty (30) days. This was true for Residents #13, #29, #16 and #36...
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, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The facility failed to label and date food items ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2021
11 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 Resident #27 was treated with respect and dignity during wound care. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Ide...
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 resident observation, resident interview, staff interviews and review of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), the facility failed to assure a resident received an accurate assessment of or...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to make staffing information readily available in a readable format to residents and visitors at all times. This practice had the potentia...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, staff interview and anonymous resident interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at an acceptable temperature. The failed practice had the potential t...
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 and sanitary manner to prevent the spread of food-borne illness. This failed practice had the potential to affect...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure recommendations, concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility, discovered during the the resident counci...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and staff interview the facility failed to administer medications and perform treatments in accordance with the physicians orders. This was true for four (4) of 14 sampled res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
b) Resident #5
An observation on 06/23/21 at 2:10PM, found Resident #5's oxygen flow rate was set at 3 liters per minute (L/m) via nasal cannula (NC). A review of the residents record found a physici...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent to administer medications timely and safely. This practice had the potential to af...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow procedures to ensure the accurate administration and documentation of medications per physicians orders. Additionally, the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 provide record keeping; monitoring for medication expiration ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 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.
- • 39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Lindside Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LINDSIDE 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 Lindside Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates LINDSIDE HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 62%, which is 16 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lindside Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at LINDSIDE HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 39 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Lindside Healthcare Center?
LINDSIDE 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 57 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LINDSIDE, West Virginia.
How Does Lindside Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, LINDSIDE HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (62%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lindside Healthcare Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.
Is Lindside Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LINDSIDE 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 Lindside Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at LINDSIDE HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 62%, the facility is 16 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Lindside Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
LINDSIDE 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 Lindside Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
LINDSIDE 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.