WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER

601 COLLIERS WAY, WEIRTON, WV 26062 (304) 797-6000
Non profit - Corporation 33 Beds WVU MEDICINE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#15 of 122 in WV
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: June 2024

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

Overview

Weirton Medical Center has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering this facility. It ranks #15 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 3 in Hancock County, meaning only one local option is better. However, the facility is trending worse, with issues increasing from 8 in 2022 to 12 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, earning 5/5 stars with only a 27% turnover rate, which is significantly lower than the state average. Notably, there have been no fines, but recent inspections revealed concerning issues, such as a resident not receiving timely assistance for over two hours and water temperatures exceeding safe limits, potentially leading to serious burns. Overall, while the staffing and care ratings are excellent, there are critical areas for improvement related to safety and policy adherence.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In West Virginia
#15/122
Top 12%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
8 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below West Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 131 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of West Virginia nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2022: 8 issues
2024: 12 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Low Staff Turnover (27%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (27%)

    21 points below West Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: WVU MEDICINE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record

Jun 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and investigation, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2's preferred sleeping and waking times were honored. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and investigation, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2's preferred sleeping and waking times were honored. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents who reside at the facility. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifier #2. Facility Census: 24 Findings included: a) Resident #2 During an interview with Resident #2, she stated she was woken up at around 4:30 AM on 06/26/24 by three (3) Nursing Assistants (NAs). Resident #2 stated they set about getting her things packed. She said that they stated that they were getting her ready for discharge. She stated that she was unable to identify the NAs because it was dark, and she had just woken up. Resident stated, I paid for this room, and I will decide when to wake up, and when to get ready. An interview with the resident's daughter at 1:08 PM on 06/26/24, revealed she had made a complaint to RN #17. She stated the RN said that staff had probably, attempted to get a jump on things. During an Interview with RN #17 at 1:17 PM on 06/26/24 she stated she had received a complaint from the resident, and the resident's daughter. She further stated she had forwarded the complaint to Director of Nursing (DON) #23. While being interviewed, on 06/26/24 at 1:38 PM, (DON) #23 stated she would review the previous night's staffing schedule and investigate the complaint. The DON agreed that residents had the right to choose their schedules, consistent with their interests, assessments, and care plans. This included, but was not limited to, choices about the schedules that were important to the resident, such as waking, eating, bathing, and going to bed at night.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to post in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents, the results of the most rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to post in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents, the results of the most recent survey of the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect more than a limited number of residents and/or family members. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 24. Findings included: a) Survey Results During an observation, completed on 06/26/24 at 10:19 AM, it was determined the facility had signage by the elevator indicating that survey results were available in the three-ring binder kept in a clear, wall mounted bin by the signage. Further observation revealed the three-ring binder did not have the results of the most recent Long-Term Care Survey Process. During an interview on 06/26/24 10:25 AM, the current Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the binder did not have the most recent Long-term Care Survey Process survey. At that time, the DON spoke to the former DON who was working on the floor in a different capacity. The former DON stated, It was there. Maybe it was taken and not replaced.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Advance Directive paperwork was part of the re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Advance Directive paperwork was part of the resident's medical record. This was true for one (1) of 13 residents reviewed in the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier: #139. Facility census: 24. Findings included: a) Resident #139 A medical record review, completed on 06/25/24 at 8:27 AM, indicated that Resident #139 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. It also identified the following details: -Resident #139's profile page identified the fact that one of resident's family members was appointed as Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA). -A Advance Directive Acknowledgement form on file and indicated Resident #139 been informed of his right under the law to use an Advance Directive while at the facility. Resident #139 indicated that he did have an Advance Directive and wanted it included in his medical record. -There was no copy of the Advance Directive paperwork scanned into the electronic record. -There was no copy of the Advance Directive paperwork on Resident #139's hard chart at the nurses' station. During an interview, on 06/26/24 at 10:50 AM, the MDS Coordinator reported the facility could not produce resident's Advance Directive paperwork which meant there was no way of knowing if a Living Will was part of it and what the resident's wishes would be in a true medical emergency where he was very sick and unable to communicate his wishes for himself.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to report allegations of neglect and verba...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to report allegations of neglect and verbal abuse for Resident #2. This was a random opportunity for discovery. This failed practice has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents at the facility. Resident Identifier #2. Facility census:24 Findings: a) Resident #2 During an interview of Resident #2 on 06/24/24 at 1:05 PM, resident stated that she had needed to use her bedside commode on 06/23/24 at around 6:00 AM. Resident stated that no one had responded to her call light for over two (2) hours. She further stated that she was sitting on the edge of her bed and could feel herself sliding off, so she had begun to shout out loudly for assistance. Her calls were responded to by Nursing Assistant (NA) #15, who told her to stop shouting so loudly. Resident's family member, who was present, stated that her sister had made a complaint to the nurse in charge on 06/23/24 at 10:35 AM. She stated that no one had responded to the complaint. Investigation, and record review, revealed that the nurse in charge, RN #16, had submitted an email to the Director of Nursing (DON) #23 on 06/23/24 at 11:32 AM. The email stated: room [ROOM NUMBER] Resident #12's daughter is very upset. She said that her mother was on the call light for over two (2) hours from 4am - 6am. She said that a girl came in the room and asked her if she needed help and left her without helping and acted like she didn't know what a bedside commode was and left her. Family is upset and would like to talk to you. A review of the facility reportables, on 06/25/24 at 11:45 AM, did not find a corresponding reportable to the appropriate state agencies. During an interview with the DON on 06/25/24 at 2:28 PM, she stated that she had pulled the call log response time, but she had not yet had the opportunity to talk to the resident's daughter, due to surveyors entering the facility
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This was a random opportunity for discovery. Based on record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ini...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This was a random opportunity for discovery. Based on record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to initiate an investigation of an alleged violation of neglect and verbal abuse for Resident #2. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents at the facility. Resident Identifier #2. Facility Census:24. a) Resident #2 Based on an interview of Resident #2 on 06/24/24 at 1:05 PM, resident stated that she had needed to use her bedside commode on 06/23/24 at around 6:00 AM. Resident stated that no one had responded to her call light for over two (2) hours. She further stated that she was sitting on the edge of her bed and could feel herself sliding off, so she had begun to shout out loudly. Her calls were responded to by a Nursing Assistant (NA) #15, who told her to stop shouting so loudly. Resident's family member, who was present, stated that her sister had made a complaint to the nurse in charge on 06/23/24 at 10:35 AM. She stated that no one had responded to the complaint. Investigation, and record review, revealed that the nurse in charge, RN #16, had submitted an email to the Director of Nursing (DON) #23 on 06/23/24 at 11:32 AM. The email stated: room [ROOM NUMBER] Resident #12's daughter is very upset. She said that her mother was on the call light for over two (2) hours from 4am - 6am. She said that a girl came in the room and asked her if she needed help and left her without helping and acted like she didn't know what a bedside commode was and left her. Family is upset and would like to talk to you. During an interview with the DON on 06/25/24 at 2:28 PM, she stated that she had pulled the call log response time, but she had not had the opportunity to talk to the resident's daughter as yet, due to surveyors entering the facility. b) Facility Policy on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A review of the policy revealed that the policy states that: Suspicion of abuse/neglect/exploitation, or reports of abuse/neglect/exploitation are to be responded to immediately. The Director of Nursing Services, Administrator or designee will: a. Notify the appropriate agencies immediately: as soon as possible, but no later than twenty-four (24) hours after discovery of the incident. b. Obtain statements from direct care staff. c. Suspend the accused employee pending completion of the investigation. d. Follow up with the appropriate agencies . to confirm the report was received. e. Report to the state nurse aide registry or nursing board any knowledge of any actions which would indicate an employee is unfit for service. A review of the facility reportables, on 06/25/24 at 11:45 AM, did not find a corresponding reportable to the appropriate state agencies. Further record review, and interview with DON #23 on 06/25/24 at 2:28 PM revealed that none of the actions mandated in the policy had been initiated or acted upon.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure resident #92 received an adequate amount of nutrition. This was true for one (1) of (1) residents reviewed for nutritio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure resident #92 received an adequate amount of nutrition. This was true for one (1) of (1) residents reviewed for nutrition. Resident identifier #92. Facility census 24. Findings included: a) Resident #92 An observation on 06/24/24 at 1:14 PM the lunch tray was sitting in front of resident, she was not eating, no assistance was offered or observed during meal. A second observation on 06/25/24 at 1:32 PM her lunch meal was not consumed and just sitting in front of resident. A medical record review revealed a physician's order for a diabetic regular diet. No weights or nutritional assessments were documented during her admission to the skilled unit. A subsequent review of meal intakes revealed the resident's percentages were 0-25 eaten during meals. During an interview on 06/26/24 at 12:23 PM the Director verified that no weight was obtained on admission or 7 days later. She also verified Resident #92 should have been assessed within the first week of admission for nutritional status.
CONCERN (D)

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 ensure that pain management was provided to residents who req...

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 that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice. Pain medication was not administered appropriately per the physician's order. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents who were reviewed under the pain pathway in the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident #139. Facility census: 24 Findings included: a) Resident #139 During an interview, on 06/24/24 at 1:33 PM, Resident #139 mentioned he received medication for pain in his back and had arthritis in hand which necessitated pain medication as well. Resident #139 went on the say that he had requested for his doctor visit him today because his pain levels were not always under control. A record review, completed on 06/26/24 at 8:35 AM, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The following two (2) orders were for pain management: -A 06/06/24 Physician Order prescribing: Oxycodone 5 mg oral tablet every 6 hr., -A 06/22/24 Physician Order prescribing: Acetaminophen (Tylenol) - 650 mg =2 oral tablets, every 6 hours, PRN, mild - Pain 1-3. Review of the Medication Administration Record revealed the following dates that Acetaminophen/Tylenol was given to resident despite his pain being higher than three (3): -Acetaminophen/Tylenol was given on 06/22/24 at 11:14 AM for a pain of ten (10) -Acetaminophen/Tylenol was given on 06/24/24 at 5:43 PM for a pain of four (4) -Acetaminophen/Tylenol was given on 06/25/24 at 8:12 AM for a pain of six (6) During an interview on 06/26/24 at 11:34 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged the above-mentioned dates where pain levels where at the level that Oxycodone should have been administered instead of Acetaminophen/Tylenol.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the attending physician documented in the resident's medical record, that the pharmacist's monthly medication review with reco...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the attending physician documented in the resident's medical record, that the pharmacist's monthly medication review with recommendations had been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it. This was true for one (1) of five (5) unnecessary medication reviews throughout the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #2. Facility census: 24. Findings include: a) Resident #2 Record review on 06/25/24 at 3:38 PM for Unnecessary Meds, and Med Regimen Review, revealed that drug regimen reviews were performed by the pharmacist on 05/29/24 at 8:57AM, and on 06/25/24 at 9:53 AM. The pharmacist had notified physician that there were no depression, anxiety, or other mental health diagnoses for the prescribed drugs Duloxetine, Mirtazapine, and Lorazepam. Record review 0n 06/26/24 at 10:17 AM revealed that physician had not acknowledged or responded to the consultant pharmacist's recommendation. Record review on 06/26/24 at 10:23 AM revealed the facility's Drug review policy stated: Recommendations of the consulting pharmacist are acted upon and documented by the attending physician. The attending physician must document in the resident's chart that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it within seven (7) days (48 hours if urgent action is required) During an interview with the DON, on 06/26/24 at 10:50 AM, she confirmed the physician had not acted upon the pharmacist's recommendations dated 05/29/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility documentation and staff interview the facility failed to have required members sign in at the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings. This failed practice had the potential ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation and staff interview the facility failed to have required members sign in at the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing at the facility. Facility Census: 24. Findings included: a) QAA Record review of the facility's documentation of QAA Meeting Agenda and Minutes revealed no meeting was conducted in the first quarter of 2024. During an Interview 06/26/24, at 2:23 PM the Director verified the first quarter required quarterly QAA meeting was not conducted. No other information was provided prior to the end of the survey on 06/26/24.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop accurate written abuse and neglect policies and faile...

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 develop accurate written abuse and neglect policies and failed to implement procedures for reporting to prevent all types of abuse. The facility failed to report an incident of neglect/mistreatment with Resident #2. This practice affected one (1) of two residents reviewed using the abuse pathway in the survey process. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents who reside at the facility. Resident identifier: #2. Facility census: 24. Findings included: a) Based on an interview of Resident #2 on 06/24/24 at 1:05 PM, resident stated that she had needed to use her bedside commode on 06/23/24 at around 6:00 AM. Resident stated that no one had responded to her call light for over two (2) hours. She further stated that she was sitting at the edge of her bed and could feel herself sliding off, so she had begun to shout out loudly for assistance. Her calls were responded to by a Nursing Assistant (NA) #15, who told her to stop shouting so loudly. Resident's family member, who was present, stated that her sister, had made a complaint to the nurse in charge on 06/23/24 at 10:35 AM. She stated that no one had responded to the complaint. Investigation, and record review, revealed that the nurse in charge, RN #16, had submitted an email to the Director of Nursing (DON) #23 on 06/23/24 at 11:32 AM. The email stated: room [ROOM NUMBER] Resident #12's daughter is very upset. She said that her mother was on the call light for over two (2) hours from 4am - 6am. She said that a girl came in the room and asked her if she needed help and left her without helping and acted like she didn't know what a bedside commode was and left her. Family is upset and would like to talk to you. b) Review on 06/26/24 at 11:33 AM, of the facility's policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, with an initial date of September 1990, and review, and revision dates from 08/91 through 03/22, revealed that the purpose of the policy is to assure that patients are free from mistreatment, neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown source. The facility prohibits abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident property. A review of the policy definitions revealed the following: Willfil - means the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Verbral Abuse - means the use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Physical Abuse - includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation. Mental Abuse - is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Further review of the policy revealed that the policy states that: Suspicion of abuse/neglect/exploitation, or reports of abuse/neglect/exploitation are to be responded to immediately. 1. The licensed Registered Nurse will: a. Respond to the needs of the resident and protect him/ her from further incident. b. Remove the accused employee from the resident care areas. c. Notify the Director of Nursing Service and Administrator d. Notify the attending physician, resident's family/legal representative, and Medical Director. e. Monitor and document the resident's condition, including response to medical treatment or nursing interventions. f. Document actions taken in the medical record. g. Protect the individual from further injury or mental anguish. h. Complete an incident report and initiate an investigation. 2. The Director of Nursing Services, Administrator or designee will: a. Notify the appropriate agencies immediately: as soon as possible, but no later than twenty- four (24) hours after discovery of the incident. b. Obtain statements from direct care staff. c. Suspend the accused employee pending completion of the investigation. d. Follow up with the appropriate agencies . to confirm the report was received. e. Report to the state nurse aide registry or nursing board any knowledge of any actions which would indicate an employee is unfit for service. Further record review, and interviews, with DON #23 revealed that none of the actions mandated in the policy had been initiated or acted upon. A review of the facility reportables, on 06/25/24 at 11:45 AM, did not find a corresponding reportable to the appropriate state agencies. During an interview with the DON on 06/25/24 at 2:28 PM, she stated that she had pulled the call log response time, but she had not yet had the opportunity to talk to the resident's daughter, due to surveyors entering the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility failed to provide an environment that was free from accident hazards over which the facility had control. Water tem...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility failed to provide an environment that was free from accident hazards over which the facility had control. Water temperatures were found to be above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F). This deficient practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 24. Findings included: a) State Operations Manual Appendix PP Review of the State Operations Manual Appendix PP found in the interpretive guidelines for F689 the following concern regarding water temperatures: - Water temperature of 124 degrees Fahrenheit will cause a 3rd degree burn in 3 minutes. - Water temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit will cause a 3rd degree burn in 5 minutes. - Burns can occur even at water temperatures below those identified, depending on an individual's condition and the length of exposure. -Third-degree burns penetrate the entire thickness of the skin and permanently destroy tissue. These present as loss of skin layers, often painless (pain may be caused by patches of first- and second-degree burns surrounding third-degree burns), and dry, leathery skin. Skin may appear charred or have patches that appear white, brown, or black. b) Water Temperatures On 06/24/24 at 2:30 PM, the water temperature of the sink in room [ROOM NUMBER] was tested by Maintenance Worker #26 under observation of the surveyor. The water temperature was tested by inserting the stem of the thermometer into the stream of running water, so that the sensor was fully immersed. A water temperature of 120.5 degrees Fahrenheit was reached. Maintenance Worker #26 stated he knew it was undesirable to have a water temperature at or above 120.0 degrees Fahrenheit. The following areas of the facility were also tested by Maintenance Worker #26 under observation of the surveyor and had temperatures greater than 110 degrees Fahrenheit. - The shower room sink had a water temperature of 124.0 degrees Fahrenheit. - The sink in room [ROOM NUMBER] had a water temperature of 123.2 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview, on 06/24/24 at 3:55 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that plant maintenance staff would ensure all water temperatures were immediately addressed to ensure resident safety.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications in the medication room. The facility had made no provision to install the appropriate environme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications in the medication room. The facility had made no provision to install the appropriate environmental controls, and monitoring devices, to preserve the integrity of the medications stored in the medication room. This was a random opportunity for discovery. This failed practice had the potential for more than minimal harm. Facility census: 24. Findings included: a) Medication Room During an inspection of the medication room on 06/25/24 at 08:11 AM, this surveyor noted that there was no temperature monitoring device in the medication room. Interview of LPN #12 at 08:14 AM revealed that the medication room temperature was not monitored or documented. The Director of Nursing (DON) # 23, on 06/26/24 at 11:38 AM, confirmed that the medication room temperature was not monitored. She stated she would have to consult with the pharmacy. The DON acknowledged that she did not have any knowledge of the need for the medication room to be temperature monitored. Manufacturers' recommendations specify the storage temperature range for medications, because many medications can be altered by exposure to improper temperature, light, or humidity, it is important the facility implement procedures that address and monitor the safe storage and handling of medications in accordance these recommendations.
Aug 2022 8 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

**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 representati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 was provided a written Notice of Transfer for an acute hospital transfer. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for hospitalizations/discharges during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #11. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Resident #11 An electronic medical record review was completed on 08/30/22 at 12:24 PM. Resident #11 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. There was no evidence a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge was provided to Resident #11 or her legal representative. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 2:00 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #8 and RN #7 were unable to readily locate evidence from the electronic medical record that a Notice of Transfer/Discharge was given to Resident #11 or legal representative. On 08/31/22 at 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the hard copy of the closed medical record was also reviewed and the facility could not provide evidence the Notice of Transfer/Discharge was given. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 submit the initial comprehensive assessment within the 14 d...

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 submit the initial comprehensive assessment within the 14 day time limit. This is true for one (1) of two (2) reviewed for admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. Resident identifier: 73. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Resident #73 Review of the medical record on 08/31/22, revealed Resident (R) #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The initial comprehensive MDS assessment was not completed and submitted to the state within 14 days of admission as required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). During an interview on 08/31/22 at 10:15 AM, the MDS nurse #7 confirmed R#73's admission MDS assessment was not submitted by the 14 day requirement. .
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 medical record review and staff interview, the pharmacist failed to identify an incomplete medication order during the initial drug regimen review. This is true for one (1) of five (5) resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the pharmacist failed to identify an incomplete medication order during the initial drug regimen review. This is true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #71. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Resident #71 Review of the medical record on 08/31/22, revealed Resident (R) #71's medical history includes cardiac failure and hypertension. The current physician orders include Diltiazem CD (Cardizem-CD) 120 milligrams by mouth one (1) time a day. Cardizem-CD is used to treat high blood pressure and/or chest pain related to angina. This order lacks an indication for use. The new admission Drug Regimen Review Communication form dated 08/26/22, notes the pharmacist reviewed R #71's medication and relevant medical record information and did not identify any clinical significant medication-related concerns. During an interview on 08/31/22 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed the pharmacist failed to identify the incomplete Cardizem-CD order during the initial drug regimen review. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication order included an adequate indication for its use. This is true for one (1) of five (5) residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication order included an adequate indication for its use. This is true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #71. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Resident #71 Review of the medical record on 08/31/22, revealed Resident (R) #71's medical history includes cardiac failure and hypertension. The current physician orders include Diltiazem CD (Cardizem-CD) 120 milligrams Oral one time a day. Cardizem-CD is used to treat high blood pressure and/or chest pain related to angina. This order lacks an indication for use. The Director of Nursing reviewed the medical record and confirmed the Cardizem-CD medication order was incomplete during an interview on 08/31/22 at 11:56 AM. .
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, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed hand hygiene practices consistent with accepted standards of practice. This practice has the pot...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed hand hygiene practices consistent with accepted standards of practice. This practice has the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #36. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Hand washing During an observation of medication administration on 08/30/22 at 8:00 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #36 washed her hands for three seconds, five separate times while administering multiple eye drops and medications through Resident #75's gastric tube. When asked how long should she wash her hands, RN #36 stated 15 seconds per the facility policy. The facility policy titled Hand Hygiene states rub hands vigorously for 40 to 60 seconds when washing hands with soap and water. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 9:20 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed RN #36 did not wash her hands long enough and shoild have washed her hands longer. The DON acknowledged this is an infection control issue. .
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 medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative is provided with current information regarding additional doses of the CO...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative is provided with current information regarding additional doses of the COVID vaccine, including any changes in the benefits or risks and potential side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, before requesting consent for administration of any additional doses. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the COVID vaccine. Resident identifier: #76. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Resident #76 Review of Resident (R) #76's medical record on 08/30/22, revealed she received a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine booster on 08/30/22. The medical record is silent for information regarding education on any changes in the benefits or risks of potential side effects associated with the vaccine. The Director of Nursing confirmed the medical records lack information related to resident education of the risks and benefits of the Covid vaccines during an interview on 08/30/22 at 12:19 PM. .
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 store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that were opened. This failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents who are served food from the kitchen. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Initial Tour of Kitchen Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen, on 08/30/22 at 9:10 AM, revealed: -One (1) clear, plastic bag containing approximately ten (10) unfrozen sausage patties. The bag was unlabeled and undated. -One (1) clear, plastic bag of frozen hashbrowns. The bag was unlabeled and undated. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 9:20 AM, the Dietary Administrator acknowledged this practice did not follow facility protocol of labeling and dating all opened food items in the kitchen and did not allow the staff to ensure the food is still safe for consumption. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are offered the pneumococcal vaccines currently recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), educ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are offered the pneumococcal vaccines currently recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), educated on the risks and benefits and receive the vaccine unless medically contraindicated or refused. This is true for four (4) of five (5) residents reviewed for immunizations. Resident identifiers: #75, #66, #76, #73. Facility census: 20. Findings included: a) Immunization Record Review Review of the immunization records on 08/30/22, revealed Residents #75, #66, #76, and #73 were not offered the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) 15 or PCV 20 vaccine. R 75's record notes she has not had a pneumonia vaccine and is silent for information regarding education of the vaccine and the opportunity to accept or decline the immunization. Residents #66, #76, and #73's medical records lack any information related to the residents' pneumococcal vaccine history, education on the risks and benefits of the vaccine, and the opportunity to receive the pneumococcal vaccine unless medically contraindicated. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 12:19 PM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged the vaccine immunization policy is not up to date and does not reflect CDC's current recommendations for the PCV 15 and PCV 20. The DON reviewed the immunization records and confirmed the residents pneumonia vaccine history was incomplete and the records lack education regarding CDC's current Vaccine Information Statement dated 02/04/2022. .
May 2021 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 provide maintenance services to ensure a safe, clean, comfort...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide maintenance services to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable homelike environment for one (1) of 19 rooms observed during the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Room identifier: 634. Facility census: 21. Findings included: a) Observation Observation made on 05/10/21 at 12:49 PM during the LTCSP, revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] had a wooden rail behind the resident's bed that was loose in multiple areas as a result of the anchors coming out of wall. b) Interview Maintenance Worker #62, on 05/11/21 at 10:44 AM, verified the wooden rail was coming loose from the wall and in need of repair. Maintenance Worker #62 stated he would ensure the issue was addressed in a timely fashion. .
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 ensure one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pain management received treatment and care in accordance with professional stan...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pain management received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure pain medication was administered according to the parameters given in the physician order. Resident Identifier: Resident #73. Facility Census: 21. Findings included: a) Resident #73 On 05/11/21 at 10:00 AM, an electronic health record review was completed. The following active physician order dated 05/06/21 at 6:30 PM was given: tramadol 50 mg Oral 4 x day PRN (as needed) Pain 6-10. During an interview with RN #32, on 5/11/21 at 11:45 AM, it was verified that Tramadol 50 mg was administered on 05/08/21 when Resident #73's assessed pain level was identified as a five (5). On 05/11/21 at 12:24 PM, the DON acknowledged the Tramadol medication was administered outside the physician parameters. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Skilled Hall 654-688 An observation on 05/10/21 at 12:11 PM found, an Intravenous (IV) Antibiotic, Sodium chloride 0.9 100m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Skilled Hall 654-688 An observation on 05/10/21 at 12:11 PM found, an Intravenous (IV) Antibiotic, Sodium chloride 0.9 100ml with Ampicillin 2000mg, laying on a nurse's cart on the hall 654-688 unsecured and unattended and allowing access to this medication by residents, unauthorized staff, or visitors. An interviewed with Registered Nurse (RN) #5 on 05/10/21 at 12:14 PM, verified that the antibiotic should be locked up. RN #5 removed the medication at this time. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide an environment that was free from accident hazards. The laundry area had an abundance of lent build-up that had the potential to be a fire hazard and a medication was left unattended in the hallway of the skilled unit. These were random opportunities for discovery. The failed practices had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 21. Findings included: a) Laundry Room An observation, on 05/11/21 at 2:15 PM, revealed a commercial sized ironer machine with the name American [NAME]-Pro. The American [NAME]-Pro Ironer revealed a missing protective shield under the machine where the wiring was located. The wiring had a thick layer of lent in between and interconnecting the wires under the machine. An abundance of lent and dust were present under the machine with chunks of lent balls visible. An interview with Laundry Supervisor, on 05/11/21 02:30 PM, confirmed the protective cover under the American [NAME]-Pro Ironer was missing and confirmed the thick layer of lent and dust was present under the machine. An interview with Facilities Director (FD), on 05/11/21 at 3:25 PM, confirmed that the lent around the sides and wiring of the machine was thick and could be a fire hazard. FD stated, it would only take a spark.
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 accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that were opened and failed to dispose of expired food items. This failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents who are served food from the kitchen. Facility census: 21. Findings included: a) Initial Tour of Kitchen Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen, on 05/10/21 at 11:50 AM, revealed: -One (1) clear plastic container of Cocoa Powder. Opened dated was 08/22/19. There was no use by date. -One (1) opened bag of crushed graham crackers. Opened date was 09/11/19. There was no use by date. -One (1) plastic bag of opened Amish Egg Noodles with approximately 1/4 of the noodles remaining. There was no label to identify the date the bag had been opened. There was also no use by date. -1 clear bag of blueberry bagels (identified by Dietary Worker #60) which had been opened and had three (3) bagels remaining. The clear bag of bagels had been opened and stored without a label identifying the product nor the date the bag had been opened. There was also no use by date. During an interview on 05/10/21 at 12:10 PM, Dietary Worker #60 acknowledged this practice does not allow the staff to ensure the food is still safe for consumption. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure eight (8) of twelve (12) residents reviewed during t...

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 eight (8) of twelve (12) residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process had a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form completed correctly per directions specified by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life Care in conjunction with the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act (16-30-1). Resident identifiers: #74, #75, #76, #69, #67, #71, #8, and #72. Facility census: 21. Findings included: a) Resident #74 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 2:33 PM, found a POST form on Resident #74's medical chart. The POST form indicated Resident #74 chose to receive CPR. The POST form also indicated Resident #74 wished to receive full interventions. The POST form was signed by patient on [DATE] and was signed and dated by the physician on [DATE]. However, the physician's name was not printed nor was the physician's phone number provided on the POST form. The 2021 Edition of Using the POST Form Guidance for Health Care Professionals, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life, state: the physician . must print their name, sign, and date this section for the form to be legally valid. On [DATE] at 9:57 AM, RN #32 acknowledged the POST form was not completed according to professional standards and was not legally valid. b) Resident #75 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 2:37 PM, found a POST form on Resident #75's medical chart. The POST form indicated Resident #75 chose to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and wanted to receive Comfort Measures. Section C of the POST form entitled Medically Administered Fluids and Nutrition was left blank. No directive was given regarding Resident #75's expressed wishes regarding either receiving or not receiving IV fluids as well as either receiving or not receiving tube feedings. In 2002 the POST form was incorporated into the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act, which was enacted to ensure that a patient's right to self-determination in healthcare decisions be communicated and protected (16-30-2). On [DATE] at 9:58 AM, RN #32 acknowledged there was no way to know what Resident #75's treatment wishes were regarding medically administered fluids and nutrition. RN #32 confirmed the POST form was not completed in its entirety, did not adequately reflect Resident #75's treatment preferences, and the form should be updated. c) Resident #76 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 2:41 PM, found a POST form on Resident #76's medical chart. The POST form indicated Resident #76 chose to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and wanted to receive limited additional interventions. The POST form was signed and dated by Resident #76 on [DATE]. The POST form was not signed or dated by Resident #76's physician. The directions for completing the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life, state the physician must sign and date the form. The guidance further clarifies the signature is mandatory and a form lacking the signature is NOT valid. On [DATE] at 9:59 AM, RN #32 acknowledged the POST form was not signed and dated by Resident #76's physician, thereby making the form invalid. d) Resident #69 A recorded review on [DATE], revealed section C- medical administered fluids and nutrition and section D -Physician's name, date, phone number and signature, was not completed on the POST form. On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, during an interview with the DON, she verified that Resident #69's POST form was incomplete. e) Resident #67 A recorded review on [DATE], revealed section D -Physician's name, date, phone number and signature, was not completed on the POST form. On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, during an interview with the DON, she verified that Resident #67's POST form was incomplete. f) Resident #71 A recorded review on [DATE], revealed section D -Physician's name, date, phone number and signature, was not completed on the POST form. On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, during an interview with the DON, she verified that Resident #71's POST form was incomplete. g) Resident #72 A record review on [DATE], revealed section D -Physician's signature, date, and phone number, was not completed on the POST form. On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, during an interview with the DON, she verified that Resident #72's POST form was incomplete. h) Resident #8 An observation on, [DATE] at 3:04 PM, revealed Part C and D was not completed on the POST form. An interview with Director of Nursing (DON), on [DATE] at 4:30 PM, confirmed the POST form sections C and D were incomplete.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary and functional environment. The facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary and functional environment. The facility failed to maintain the maintenance of multiple doors located on the skilled unit. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than an limited number of residents, staff and visitors. Room numbers included: 614, 616, 646, 654, 656, 682 and the door to the dining Room. Facility census: 21. Findings included: a) Doorways An observation, on 05/12/21 at 8:00 AM, revealed multiple doors on the skilled unit had chunks of wood missing from them causing the remaining wood on the doors to be splintered. The identified rooms with the splintered areas on the doors included: --room [ROOM NUMBER] --room [ROOM NUMBER] --room [ROOM NUMBER] --room [ROOM NUMBER] --room [ROOM NUMBER] --room [ROOM NUMBER] --Dining Room Interview with Maintenance Worker (MW) #62, on 05/12/21 at 8:39 AM, confirmed the doors needed repaired. MW #62 stated, the doors could cause splinters if someone would run their hands across it. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 05/12/21 at 9:43 AM, confirmed the doors have been like that for a while and verified the doors could cause injury because the wood is splintered. .
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+ (83/100). 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.
  • • 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below West Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 26 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 Weirton Medical Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within West Virginia, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Weirton Medical Center Staffed?

CMS rates WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 27%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Weirton Medical Center?

State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 26 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Weirton Medical Center?

WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by WVU MEDICINE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 33 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEIRTON, West Virginia.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (27%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Weirton Medical Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Weirton Medical Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in West Virginia. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Weirton Medical Center Stick Around?

Staff at WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 27%, the facility is 19 percentage points below the West Virginia average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Weirton Medical Center Ever Fined?

WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Weirton Medical Center on Any Federal Watch List?

WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER

601 COLLIERS WAY, WEIRTON, WV 26062 | (304) 797-6000

B+
Trust Grade (83/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
26
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing
  • Low turnover (27%)

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025