PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER

640 SAND HILL ROAD, POINT PLEASANT, WV 25550 (304) 675-5236
For profit - Corporation 100 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#5 of 122 in WV
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #5 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the best option in Mason County, with only one other facility in the area. The facility is improving, having reduced reported issues from 13 in 2022 to just 1 in 2024. Staffing received a 3/5 rating, which is average, but with a low turnover rate of 30%, better than the state's average of 44%, indicating that staff stay long enough to build relationships with residents. While there are no fines on record, there were concerning incidents, including failure to report allegations of neglect from several residents and incomplete medication reviews, highlighting the need for better oversight and communication in addressing resident care issues. Overall, while there are strengths in staff retention and quality ratings, families should consider the facility’s recent compliance challenges.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In West Virginia
#5/122
Top 4%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
13 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% 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 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for West Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2022: 13 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below West Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 30%

16pts 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 23 deficiencies on record

Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Infection control breaches occurred during medication administration. This was a random opportunity for discovery during the medication administration facility task. Resident identifier: #12 Facility Census: 99 Findings included: a) Resident #12 On 11/19/24 at 8:07 AM medication administration observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #65 found an infection control breach. When LPN #65 opened the packet of medications for Resident #12 the three (3) pills spilled out. One (1) pill fell into the bottom opened drawer of the medication cart and two (2) pills landed on the top of the medication cart, off of the barrier that was in place. LPN #65 then retrieved the three (3) pills and placed them in the medication cup to administer to the resident. This was confirmed with the Director of Nursing on 11/19/24 at 8:10 AM.
Nov 2022 13 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 record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete section E (Wandering) of the MDS. This is true for one (1) of (22) medical records reviewed during the Long-Te...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete section E (Wandering) of the MDS. This is true for one (1) of (22) medical records reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Resident identifiers: 89. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Resident #89 An observation on 11/07/22 at 11:30 AM revealed Resident #89 wandering on the 400 Hall. A second observation on 11/07/22 at 1:15 PM found resident #89 continuing to wander on the 400 Hall. A review of Resident #89's medical record showed it did not contain a care plan for wandering. Further review revealed the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #89, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/01/22, Resident #89 was assessed No for Wandering. On 11/08/22 at 2:11 PM, during an interview Registered Nurse #7 (RN), verified Resident #89 does wander. She confirmed Resident #89 did not have a care plan for wandering and Wandering was missed on the Quarterly MDS Assessment. No further information was provided prior to the end of the survey on 11/09/22 at 4:30 PM .
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 ensure 2 of 22 residents reviewed had a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed for Resident #89's wandering and Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 22 residents reviewed had a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed for Resident #89's wandering and Resident #41's positioning / comfort device. Resident identifiers: #89 and #41. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) #89 An observation on 11/07/22 at 11:30 AM revealed Resident #89 wandering on the 400 hall. A second observation on 11/07/22 at 1:15 PM found resident #89 continuing to wander on the 400 hall. A review of Resident #89's medical record showed it did not contain a care plan for wandering. Further review revealed the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #89, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/01/22, Resident #89 was assessed No for Wandering. On 11/08/22 at 2:11 PM, during an interview Registered Nurse #7 (RN), verified Resident #89 does wander. She confirmed Resident #89 did not have a care plan for wandering and Wandering was missed on the Quarterly MDS Assessment. b) #41 An observation and interview on 11/07/22 at 2:24 PM revealed a right arm positioning device on Resident #41's wheelchair. Resident #41 verified that she was unable to move her right arm. A review of resident #41's Medical Record on 11/08/22 found a diagnosis for Right Side Hemiplegia and Limited ROM. Continued review showed it did not contain a physician order or a comprehensive care plan for positioning devices. During an Interview on 11/09/22 at 9:15 AM the Administrator stated that the positioning device is used for her comfort. She verified there was no Physician's order or care plan developed for her right side hemiplegia positioning / comfort device. .
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 observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care area of skin conditions, non pressure had the care plan upd...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care area of skin conditions, non pressure had the care plan updated for treatment of a diabetic ulcer. Resident identifier: #73. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Resident #73 Review of the resident's medical record found the resident has a diabetic ulcer on the bottom of the right foot. Review of the care plan found a focus: Diabetic ulcer r/t (related to) diabetes, vascular insufficiency. The goal associated with the focus: Will have no complications related to ulcer through review date and ulcer will improve by review. A current intervention included: Diabetic shoes with insoles as ordered. The intervention was initiated on 10/05/22 and revised on 06/27/22. On 11/08/22 at 3:08 PM, the resident was observed to be in the dining room wearing a plastic shoe with the back open. When asked about diabetic shoes, the resident said, I don't have any. Staff members #111 and #70, the Registered Nurse Minimum Data Set Coordinators were present during the interview. Employees #111 and #70 searched the resident's room with permission and no diabetic shoes were located. At approximately 4:15 PM on 11/09/22, the Administrator said the diabetic shoes had been discontinued by the physician. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications and biological's used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional princip...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications and biological's used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Multiple medications stored in the medication room refrigerators were unlabeled and undated. This practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Medication Room An observation of the facility's Medication Room Refrigerator, on 11/09/22 at 8:17 AM, revealed a refrigerator containing one (1) open container 10 dose Influenza Vaccine High Dose Prefilled Syringes with four (4) remaining, not dated or labeled when opened. Continued observation revealed three (3) bottles of Zinc 50 MG, with a use by date 10/22. An interview with the Administrator on 11/09/22 at 8:18 AM, verified the Influenza Vaccine High Dose Prefilled Syringes was not labeled or dated when opened and the Zinc was outdated. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medicaid resident who was in need of routine and/or emergency dental care received needed care as soon as pos...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medicaid resident who was in need of routine and/or emergency dental care received needed care as soon as possible. Resident #93 returned from a dental appointment on 11/02/22 and returned with recommendations for teeth extractions, fillings and fittings for a top denture and lower partial. On 11/09/22 the facility confirmed they had not begun the process of setting up this recommended dental work. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for dental. Resident identifier: #93. Facility census: #97. Findings included: a) Resident #93 An observation of Resident #93 on 11/07/22 at 12:02 pm found the resident had missing teeth on the top and lower gums. Her remaining teeth were discolored and did not appear to be in good repair. A review of Resident #93's medical record found a dental consult dated 10/03/22. The consult indicated the resident was sent to the dentist related to a toothache. The recommendations sent back with the resident were for the resident to schedule a cleaning due to the patient having excessive plaque. The facility staff made this appointment and the resident returned to the dentist on 11/02/22 and returned to facility with the following recommendations, advised to have top two (2) teeth extracted and top denture. extraction and 2 fillings on lower with partial denture. Further review of the medical record on 11/08/22 found no indication the residents appointment for the recommendations made 11/02/22 had been scheduled or set into motion. An interview with the Medical Record Clerk (MRC) #81 on 11/09/22 at 10:37 AM, confirmed Resident #93's appointment for extractions has not been made. She stated that she typically is the one who makes the appointments but she did not get these recommendations. MRC #81 had not made the appointment yet for Resident #93 to get her teeth extracted because she had no knowledge of the need for the appointment. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator at 1:26 pm on 11/09/22, confirmed the appointment had not been made prior to surveyor intervention. She stated the MRC #81 was not the only one who could have made the appointment but no one actually made the appointment. .
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, facility documentation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide food services in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure food w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, facility documentation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide food services in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure food were dated to indicate when opened. The facility also failed to ensure temperatures for the walk-in freezer were consistently recorded. The practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Undated Food and Incomplete Temperature Log During a tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager, on 11/07/22 at 11:00 AM, a 25 lb. bag of Panko bread crumbs was opened but not dated. Approximately half of the bag had been used. Additionally, the temperature log for the for walk-in fridge was incomplete for the following dates: -11/05/22 -11/06/22 -11/07/22 The Dietary Manager acknowledged the facility failed to follow protocol when food was opened but not dated and when the facility failed to complete the temperature log for the walk-in fridge on a daily basis. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain current food handler cards as required by County law...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain current food handler cards as required by County law for one (1) of ten (10) employees reviewed in the Dietary Department. This practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents who receive their nutrients from the kitchen. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Food Handlers Cards During a record review on 11/08/22 at 11:20 AM, it was determined that Dietary Services Assistant #11 did not have an active food handlers card on file. The Dietary Manager stated he believed new staff had 90 days from hire to obtain certification. Further review from the [NAME] County Health Department's website, https://www.statefoodsafety.com/food-handler/west-virginia/[NAME]-county, determined all food service personnel should obtain their food handlers cards within 30 days of hire. Dietary Services Assistant #11's first day of employment was 09/07/22. On 11/08/22 at 1:45 PM, the Dietary Manager acknowledged the within 30 days of hire requirement had not been met for Dietary Services Assistant #11. .
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 maintain an accurate medical record for two (2) of 21 sample residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey process. The facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two (2) of 21 sample residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey process. The facility failed to ensure Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) forms were legally valid. Resident identifiers: #90 and #248. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Resident # 90 A record review, on 11/07/22 at 2:23 PM, revealed a POST form in Resident #90's electronic medical record. The POST form was dated 07/13/22. Section F of the POST form, entitled Signature: Health Care Provider, was undated, no telephone number was provided, and no physician license number was provided. The directions for completing the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End of Life, state, The health care provider completing this form (MD, DO, APRN, or PA) must print their name, sign, and date this section for the form to be legally valid. Failure to print their name or provide a license number may result in the WV e-Directive Registry being unable to verify the provider's information, thus preventing the form from being available through the Registry. Failure to provide a contact number may result in the inability to contact the provider regarding any errors in the form completion that need to be addressed. During an interview, on 11/08/22 at 12:07 PM, the Administrator acknowledged the POST form was not completed according to guidance. b) Resident #248 A record review, completed on 11/07/22 at 3:30 PM, revealed a POST form in Resident #248's electronic medical record. The POST form was dated 10/27/2022. Section F of the POST form, entitled Signature: Health Care Provider, was undated, no telephone number was provided, and no physician license number was provided. The directions for completing the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End of Life, state, The health care provider completing this form (MD, DO, APRN, or PA) must print their name, sign, and date this section for the form to be legally valid. Failure to print their name or provide a license number may result in the WV e-Directive Registry being unable to verify the provider's information, thus preventing the form from being available through the Registry. Failure to provide a contact number may result in the inability to contact the provider regarding any errors in the form completion that need to be addressed. During an interview, on 11/08/22 at 12:07 PM, the Administrator acknowledged the POST form was not completed according to guidance. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on facility documentation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain documentation related to current students training in the facility for COVID-19 vaccination for eight (8) of eigh...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on facility documentation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain documentation related to current students training in the facility for COVID-19 vaccination for eight (8) of eight (8) nurse aide and nursing students reviewed for compliance with Covid -19 vaccinations. Facility Census: 97 Findings included: a) COVID-19 Vaccination Documentation Facility documentation review of the facility's Infection control practices found the facility was unable to provide the required student's Covid-19 documentation for vaccinations. During an interview on 11/09/22 at 12:30 PM, Registered Nurse #8 stated that the facility did not have Covid -19 vaccination documentation for the students training in the facility. She stated that the facility failed to get the documentation. .
CONCERN (E)

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 their Abuse Prohibition policy by failing to report all allegations of neglect to appropriate state agencies as required....

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement their Abuse Prohibition policy by failing to report all allegations of neglect to appropriate state agencies as required. Resident #398, #399, #8 and #11 made allegations of neglect at the same time regarding Nurse Aide (NA) #73 nor providing care to them when requested. These allegations of neglect were not reported to the appropriate state agencies as required by the facility's policy. This was true for four (4) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of abuse during the long term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #398, #399, #8, and #11. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Grievance/Complaint Form dated 05/23/22 A review of the Grievance/Complaint form dated 05/23/22 which read, Each resident was interviewed separately by social services . After interviews were complete, the complaints are as followed: -- Residents expressed concern with Ms. (Last name of Nurse Aide #73) customer service. They residents feel she is rude with the. She does not complete her duties in a timely manner. Ex: She will come in room, turn off call light and say, I'll be back and doesn't come back to provide the care or waits 30 plus minutes. -- Residents say they can hear her in the hall joking, laughing, and talking instead of helping them. -- Residents feel that Ms. (Last name of NA #73) does not listen to their needs or concerns to provide proper care. -- Residents feel they are not being cleaned properly. The complaint grievance form identified the residents voicing this concern as Resident #399, Resident #398, Resident #8 and Resident #11. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 11/08/22 at 2:19 PM confirmed these allegations of neglect were not reported. She indicated they felt it was more of a customer service issue and not neglect, but she did agree if the NA was not not providing care and turning of the call light and not coming back to provide the care that would be neglect. b) Policy Review A review of the facility's policy titled Freedom form Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an effective date of 07/19/21 found the following in regards to reporting of alleged neglect, .e. The facility will report allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, events resulting in serious bodily harm, or misappropriation of resident property in accordance with state and federal requirements. .
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 report all allegations of neglect to appropriate state agencies as required. Resident #398, #399, #8 and #11 made allegations of ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to report all allegations of neglect to appropriate state agencies as required. Resident #398, #399, #8 and #11 made allegations of neglect at the same time regarding Nurse Aide (NA) #73 not providing care to them when requested. These allegations of neglect were not reported to the appropriate state agencies as required. In addition, an incident of resident to resident altercation involving Resident #81 abuse was not reported to appropriate state agencies as required. This was true for five (5) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of abuse during the long term care survey process. Resident Identifiers: #398, #399, #8, #11 and #81. Facility Census: 97. Findings Included: a) Grievance/Complaint Form dated 05/23/22 A review of the Grievance/Complaint form dated 05/23/22 which read, Each resident was interviewed separately by social services . After interviews were complete, the complaints are as followed: -- Residents expressed concerns with Ms. (Last name of Nurse Aide #73) customer service. The residents feel she is rude with them. She does not complete her duties in a timely manner. Ex: She will come in room, turn off call light and say, I'll be back and doesn't come back to provide the care or waits 30 plus minutes. -- Residents say they can hear her in the hall joking, laughing, and talking instead of helping them. -- Residents feel that Ms. (Last name of NA #73) does not listen to their needs or concerns to provide proper care. -- Residents feel they are not being cleaned properly. The complaint grievance form identified the residents voicing this concern as Resident #399, Resident #398, Resident #8 and Resident #11. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on 11/08/22 at 2:19 PM confirmed these allegations of neglect were not reported. She indicated they felt it was more of a customer service issue and not neglect, but she did agree if the NA was not not providing care and turning off the call light and not coming back to provide the care that would be neglect. b) Resident #81 On 11/07/22 at 3:58 PM in an interview with Resident #81, Resident #81 reported that she was recently hit by a male resident with his fist causing the resident to fall and hit her head and shoulder. Resident #81 stated she was going to be singing for an activity in the dining room and she asked the other resident to turn the television down for this event and he in turn punched her. Resident #81 gestured by physically showing the staff how the other resident punched her in the center area of her chest. Resident #81 refused to go to the emergency room after being evaluated by the nursing staff. Based on record review on 11/08/22 at 11:04 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #19 documented on 9/23/22, It was brought to my attention that the resident was hit by a resident from hall 4. When this nurse entered the dining room, staff was helping resident to a chair. When assessing the resident I noticed slight redness to the back of residents head and left shoulder. When asking the resident what happened she stated that boy hit me and made me fall down and I hit my head on a chair. During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 11/08/22 at 3:30 PM, all evidence related to this incident was requested from the NHA. The evidence received included staff progress notes, neurological checks and incident report. No evidence related to a reportable event was provided. The NHA stated that they did not believe this event was a reportable as they believed the male resident put his hand up and that Resident #81 accidentally walked into his hand causing her to fall backwards. Based on record review on 11/08/22 at 4:40 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (insert name) on 10/03/22, documented Resident reports she was struck in the chest by another resident with his fist which caused her to fall backwards and she hit her head on a chair. Based on medical record review on 11/09/22 at 8:10 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #97 documented in a Care Plan Review patient reports that she was struck in the chest by a male resident and this caused her to fall hitting her head on a chair in addition to hitting her left shoulder and left hip. On 11/09/22 at 1:01 PM an interview was held with the NHA. The NHA was advised that all documentation provided states Resident #81 was either struck or hit by the other resident not that Resident #81 ran into the other resident's hand. The NHA was notified that if any additional records were available to provide additional support of the facility investigating this event and their determination that it again would be accepted. No additional documentation was provided prior to exiting the facility. .
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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) policy that accurately addressed the time frames for steps ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) policy that accurately addressed the time frames for steps in the MRR process. The facility also failed to ensure monthly pharmacy medication reviews were completed by the consulting pharmacist. This was true for four (4) out five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifiers: #6, #20, #90, and #41. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Resident #6 A record review, completed on 11/08/22 at 4:23 PM, found there was no Medication Regimen Review (MRR) in the record for the month of August 2022. On 11/09/22 at 9:51 AM, the Administrator stated that the pharmacist had a 37 day window to complete monthly reviews and had completed a MRR on 07/31/22 to compensate for not being in the building the month of August. The Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/09/22 at 10:02 AM, shared the Pharmaceutical Services Policy, with a revision date of 11/28/2017, which stated the consultant pharmacist will perform a formal review of the drug regimen of each patient monthly, at an interval not to exceed 37 days. During an interview, on 11/09/22 at 10:57 AM, the Administrator acknowledged the facility policy did not match the federal guidance which states the consultant pharmacist must complete monthly medication reviews for each resident. The Administrator stated the policy will be updated. b) Resident #20 A record review, completed on 11/09/22 at 8:15 AM, found there was no MMR in the record for the month of August 2022. On 11/09/22 at 9:51 AM, the Administrator stated that the pharmacist had a 37 day window to complete monthly reviews and had completed a MMR on 07/31/22 to compensate for not being in the building the month of August. The Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/09/22 at 10:02 AM, shared the Pharmaceutical Services Policy, with a revision date of 11/28/17, which stated the consultant pharmacist will perform a formal review of the drug regimen of each patient monthly, at an interval not to exceed 37 days. During an interview, on 11/09/22 at 10:57 AM, the Administrator acknowledged the facility policy did not match the federal guidance which states the consultant pharmacist must complete monthly medication reviews for each resident. The Administrator stated the policy will be updated. c) Resident #90 A record review, completed on 11/08/22 at 3:41 PM, found there was no MMR in the record for the month of August 2022. On 11/09/22 at 9:51 AM, the Administrator stated that the pharmacist had a 37 day window to complete monthly reviews and had completed a MMR on 07/31/22 to compensate for not being in the building the month of August. The Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/09/22 at 10:02 AM, shared the Pharmaceutical Services Policy, with a revision date of 11/28/2017, which stated the consultant pharmacist will perform a formal review of the drug regimen of each patient monthly, at an interval not to exceed 37 days. During an interview, on 11/09/22 at 10:57 AM, the Administrator acknowledged the facility policy did not match the federal guidance which states the consultant pharmacist must complete monthly medication reviews for each resident. The Administrator stated the policy will be updated. d) Resident #41 During an unnecessary MRR on 11/09/22 for Resident #41, showed it did not contain the required MRR's completed in the months December 2021, May 2022 and August 2022. During an interview on 11/09/22 at 9:51 AM the Administrator verified the MRRs for December 2021, May 2022 and August 2022 were not completed monthly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on staff interview, resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff, responsible for presenting the binding arbitration agreements to residents/responsible...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on staff interview, resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff, responsible for presenting the binding arbitration agreements to residents/responsible parties could explain the nature and implications of the proposed binding arbitration agreement to inform their decision on whether or not to enter into such agreements. This had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents at the facility. Resident identifiers: #87, #248, #2. Facility census: 97. Findings included: a) Resident Council meeting At 1:30 PM on 11/08/22, the resident council meeting was held. The question was asked of the members attending: Did the facility ask you or any residents you know to enter into a binding agreement to resolve disputes? The Resident Council President shook his head, indicating the answer was yes. The facility Social Worker (SW) #50, was in attendance at the meeting. The residents granted permission for SW #50 to attend the meeting. SW #50 was asked if the facility used arbitration agreements. The response was I don't think we have any right now. Review of the entrance conference worksheet on the morning of 11/09/22 found the facility does offer arbitration agreements and the facility staff member responsible for the arbitration agreements was listed as SW #50. Further review of the entrance admission forms found Residents #87, #248, and #2 were listed by the facility as having signed an arbitration agreement. At approximately 8:56 AM on 11/09/22, Resident #2 said she did not remember signing an arbitration agreement. She stated that she could have signed it, but she doesn't remember anything about it. Resident #2 said she did not know what an arbitration agreement means. Review of the arbitration agreement found Resident #2 signed the agreement with SW #50 listed as the facility representative on 01/25/22. On 01/24/22 Resident #2 was deemed by the physician to have capacity to make decisions. At approximately 9:00 AM on 11/09/22, Resident #248 stated she did not know what a arbitration agreement was, and if she signed it she has no memory. Resident #248 said she didn't understand what an arbitration agreement is. Review of the arbitration agreement found Resident #248 signed the agreement on 10/27/22 with SW #50 listed as the facility representative. On 11/01/22 the resident was deemed to have capacity to make decisions by the physician. At 9:09 AM on 11/09/22, SW #50 was interviewed regarding the arbitration agreement as she was identified as the staff member responsible for presenting the arbitration agreements. SW #50 was asked to explain the arbitration agreement and what she tells the residents about the agreement. She stated, We discuss falls with them. SW #50 was asked, what does falls have to do with an arbitration agreement? SW #50 stated, I discuss their rights that they can seek legal advise if they need to. I can assist them with legal counsel. When asked if residents need to sign the arbitration agreement to be admitted , SW #50 said, yes, residents with capacity sign their own. SW #50 stated before they decide to go that route we can pull together as a team. I think with arbitration you need to have that conversation. I think there is a difference in suing somebody and just talking about what's wrong, as a team you get together. When asked if she could tell the surveyor the key points of an arbitration agreement, she said she would have to look at the agreement again because she has only been here 1 and 1/2 years. The surveyor provided a copy of the arbitration agreement to SW #50. SW #50 said the first step is allowing getting together. Later in the conversation, SW #50 said residents can refuse to sign the agreement, but she has to fill out a paper if the resident or the responsible party refuses. On 11/09/22 at 9:43 AM, Resident #87 said she could have signed the arbitration agreement but she doesn't remember. When asked if she could explain an arbitration agreement, she replied, the word arbitration sounds like, some sort of case that needs reviewed. Review of the arbitration agreement found Resident #87 signed the agreement on 01/06/22 with facility representative #50. On 01/07/22 the resident was deemed by the physician to have capacity to make decisions. On 11/09/22 at 10:18 AM, the administrator said, SW #50 was very upset and was crying after the interview with the surveyor, so SW #50 may not have understood the questions, I will make sure she is in-serviced. .
Jul 2021 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide notice of transfer to the State Ombudsman for one (1) or two (2) residents reviewed for hospital discharges. This had the...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide notice of transfer to the State Ombudsman for one (1) or two (2) residents reviewed for hospital discharges. This had the potential to affect any residents being transferred/discharged to an acute hospital. Resident identifier: #32. Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #32 During a medical record review on 07/28/2, it was discovered the facility had failed to provide three (3) notice of transfers to the State Ombudsman for acute hospital transfers on 05/09/21, 05/14/21 and 05/24/21 for Resident #32. In an interview with the Social Services Supervisor (SSS) on 07/28/21 at 9:12 AM, the SSS was unable to locate any notifications sent to the State Ombudsman regarding the hospital discharges for Resident #32 on 05/09/19, 05/14/21 and 05/24/21. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of gradual dose reduction (GDR) for antipsychotic medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of gradual dose reduction (GDR) for antipsychotic medications. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #82. Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #82 Review of Resident #82's medical record revealed a pharmacist's note to the attending physician/prescriber dated 01/18/21. The pharmacist identified a need to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of Zyprexa, an antipsychotic medication, unless a GDR was clinically contraindicated. The physician declined a GDR because the resident's target symptoms returned or worsened after the most recent attempt at a GDR and an attempt at reduction was likely to impair the resident's function and/or cause an increase in behavior. Review of Resident #82's Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 07/12/21 indicated no physician had documented a GDR was clinically contraindicated. During an interview on 07/27/21 at 11:48 AM, Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator (RNAC) #47 stated the MDS with ARD 07/12/21 was incorrect in stating the physician had not documented a GDR was clinically contraindicated. 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was true for one (1) of tw...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for respiratory care. Resident identifier: #88. Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #88 During an observation on 07/26/21 at 10:12 AM, it was discovered the oxygen concentrator for Resident #88 was set on an air flow rate of four (4) liters per minute. This resident had an order to receive oxygen at five (5) liters per minute via nasal canuala. An interview with the Unit Charge Nurse #72 on 07/27/21 at 10:15 AM, verified Resident #88 was not receiving her oxygen at five (5) liters as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction was implemented annually. In addition, the facility failed to monitor the efficacy of an anti-depress...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction was implemented annually. In addition, the facility failed to monitor the efficacy of an anti-depressant and an antipsychotic medication. This was true for two (2) out of five (5) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifiers: #49 and #82. Facility census 94. Findings included: a) Resident # 49 During record review it was noted that the last Gradual Drug Reduction (GDR) for Wellbutrin and Effexor (both antidepressants) was on 06/30/2020. Resident # 49 is diagnosed with Major Depression Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. On 07/27/2021 at 11:30 AM , the Clinical Care Supervisor (CCS) #46 stated that was the last GDR because a local psychiatric facility manages the medications for Resident # 49. CCS # 46 agreed it has been more than a year since the last GDR. In addition, CCS #46 failed to provide evidence a physician reviewed the residents medications and determined a GDR was clinically contraindicated. b) Resident #82 Review of Resident #82's medical records revealed the resident was receiving the medications Zyprexa (olanzapine) and Effexor (venlafaxine) for hallucinations and depression. Resident #82's daily Psychopharmacologic Medication Monitoring sheet contained the following interventions: - Monitor effectiveness of antipsychotic medication Olanzapine as evidenced by patient is free of tardive dyskinesia, rigid muscles, and suicidal ideation. - Monitor for absence of side effects related to antidepressant medication Effexor as evidenced by patient is free of lethargy, urinary retention, and c/o [complaints of] dry mouth. During an interview on 07/27/21 at 3:02 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #82's daily Psychopharmacologic Medication Monitoring sheet did not monitor the resident's mood and behaviors. She agreed the conditions assessed for Olanzapine were potential side effects, rather than signs of medication efficacy. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to label medications in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Facility staff failed to date multi-use vials of insulin a...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to label medications in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Facility staff failed to date multi-use vials of insulin and Tubersol to indicate when opened and used. This failed practice was true for three (3) out of eight (8) insulin multi-use vials and one (1) out of four (4) Tubersol (used to test if residents have Tuberculosis). Resident identifiers: #69, and #295. Facility census 94. Finding included: a) Insulin On 07/27/21 at 8:36 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 59 agreed there was not a date on the vial to indicate when the multi-use vial of insulin was initially opened and accessed. This was true for the Novolog belonging to Resident #69 and for Resident #295 multi-use vial of Novolog and Lantus Pen. b) Tubersol On 07/27/21 at 8:55 AM, Clinical Care Supervisor (CCS) # 46 agreed that the medication Tubersol (used to test for tuberculoses) was in a multi-use vial and did not have a date on the vial to indicate the date the vial was first accessed. .
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 in observation and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based in observation and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was true for one (1) out of one (1) resident observed for wound care. Resident identifier: #54. Facility census 94. Findings included: a) Resident #54 During an observation of wound care on 07/28/21 at 8:12 AM, Clinical Care Supervisor (CCS) # 46 failed to sanitize or provide a barrier to a prep table area prior to providing wound care to the left outer ankle of Resident # 54. CCS # 46 carried a bottle of wound cleanser in a spray bottle along with approximately eight (8) 4x4's and placed them on the bedside table. CCS # 46 donned gloves without performing any type of hand hygiene. CCS # 46 removed Resident # 54's sock and the dressing covering the wound. CCS # 46 changed her gloves and donned another pair gloves without performing any hand hygiene. CCS # 46 sprayed the wound cleanser on a 4x4 and wiped the wound, then used a clean 4x4 to dry the wound. CCS #46 failed to perform any hand hygiene or change her gloves before applying the Sure Prep and a new dressing cover. On 07/28/21 at 8:20 AM, CCS # 46 was asked if the wound cleanser used in the room of Resident # 54 was labeled with the Residents name? CCS # 46 stated, no. She was asked if the wound cleanser was kept in a bag labeled with the Residents name? Again, CCS #46 stated, no. CCS #46 exited Resident #54's room with the unused 4x4's she brought out of the the residents room. When asked what she intended to do with the 4x4's, she stated she was going to store them in her desk drawer. CCS # 46 was informed about the missed hand hygiene opportunities and the risk of cross contamination from using the same wound supplies on other residents. .
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 interview, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for un...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Laboratory orders were not followed for Resident #17 and physician's orders were not followed for blood pressure parameters for Resident #32. Resident identifiers: #17 and #32 Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #17 A medical record review on 07/27/2, revealed the physician managing the psychotropic medications for Resident #17 on 05/25/21 had requested specific laboratory orders for a Lithium level to be completed twelve (12) hours from the last dose of Lithium received. Further review of the Medication Audit for 06/03/21 indicated Resident #17 had received a dose of Lithium at 8:19 AM. Laboratory results for a Lithium level indicated it was collected on 06/03/21 at 9:34 AM. This failed practice did not allow for the Lithium level to be completed twelve (12) hours after the last dose of Lithium received. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/27/21 at 11:05 AM, the DON verified the order for lab work had not been followed for a Lithium level to be completed twelve (12) hours after the last dose of Lithium received. b) Resident #32 A review of the medical record on 07/28/21, revealed Resident #32 had a order for Coreg 12.5 milligrams (mg) two times a day related to hypertension and hold for systolic blood pressure less than 100. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/28/21 at 8:30 AM, verified the physician's orders to obtain blood pressure parameters twice a day had not been followed. The DON was unable to provide any blood pressure results for 07/01/2 to 07/03/21, 07/09/21 to 07/10/21 and 07/12/21 to 07/21/21. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary non-psychotropic medication. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary non-psychotropic medication. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #82. Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #82 Review of Resident #82's medical records showed the following physician's order written on 01/21/21, Metoprolol tartrate tablet 25 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension; hold if HR [heart rate] below 60; continue to monitor BP/P [blood pressure/pulse]. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Review (MAR) for July 2021 revealed the resident's heart rate was below 60 on the following dates and times: - 07/01/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 55 - 07/02/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 58 - 07/04/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 54 - 07/05/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 59 - 07/09/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 59 - 07/10/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 59 - 07/11/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 50 - 07/12/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 52 - 07/13/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 58 - 07/13/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 53 - 07/14/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 58 - 07/15/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 57 - 07/15/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 57 - 07/16/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 55 - 07/16/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 53 - 07/17/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 57 - 07/19/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 52 - 07/20/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 56 - 07/21/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 54 - 07/22/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 53 - 07/23/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 50 - 07/24/21 at 9:00 AM; heart rate 57 - 07/24/21 at 9:00 PM; heart rate 57 On each of these occasions, the nurse had documented a check mark on the MAR to indicate the medication had been given. During an interview on 07/27/21 at 09:50 AM, Nursing Coordinator ##2 stated that a code of 10 would have been documented on the MAR if the medication had been held. During an interview on 07/27/21 at 10:15 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed the physician-ordered parameters for Resident #82's metoprolol had not been followed. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation in the area of pain assessment. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation in the area of pain assessment. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #82. Facility census: 94. Findings included: a) Resident #82 Resident #82 was interviewed at 07/26/21 at 1:00 PM. During the interview, the resident denied pain. Review of Resident #82's medical records revealed an order written on 02/16/21 to evaluate for signs/symptoms of pain every shift. Review of Resident #82's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed check marks had been documented by nurses every day shift and night shift to indicate pain assessment had been performed. However, the resident's pain level was not recorded on the MAR nor in the nursing progress notes. There was no spaces on the MAR for the pain level to be recorded. During an interview on 07/27/21 at 3:01 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she did not believe Resident #82 was having pain because the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 07/12/21 indicated the resident had no pain. Additionally, the resident had a standing order for Tylenol as needed for pain but had not required the medication. Also, the physician progress notes documented the resident did not have pain. However, the DON confirmed the resident's pain level was not documented during the twice daily assessment. She stated she would have additional lines added to Resident #82's MAR to make areas for the pain level to be documented. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
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+ (80/100). 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.
  • • 30% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 23 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PLEASANT VALLEY 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 23 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center?

PLEASANT VALLEY 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 100 certified beds and approximately 97 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in POINT PLEASANT, West Virginia.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (30%) 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 Pleasant Valley 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PLEASANT VALLEY 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center Stick Around?

PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

PLEASANT VALLEY 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 Pleasant Valley Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

PLEASANT VALLEY 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.

PLEASANT VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER

640 SAND HILL ROAD, POINT PLEASANT, WV 25550 | (304) 675-5236

B+
Trust Grade (80/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
23
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025