Bayview Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
New Bern, North Carolina · CCN 345465
16 surveys since 2010. The first finding at harm level was recorded in 2014.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 32
- Surveys
- 16
- Harm or worse
- 1
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 60
- Ownership
- For profit - Corporation
- Chain
- CENTURY CARE MANAGEMENT
- County
- Craven · rural
- Medicare-certified since
- 1994
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 4
- Health inspection
- 4
- Staffing
- 3
- Quality measures
- 3
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=4, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Nov 20, 2025
354 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 4.63 | 3.57 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.32 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 43.1% | 45.8% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D2100.0% | E— | F— |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Bayview Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF657Nov 20, 2025
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to accurately reflect code status and the use of bedrails. This was for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #45) reviewed dementia care, and 2 of 2 residents (Resident #11 and Resident #40) reviewed for the use of bed rails.Findings included: 1. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. A physician's order for Resident #45 dated [DATE] was Do Not Resuscitate. (DNR is the refusal of Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation, a lifesaving procedure performed when someone's heartbeat or breathing has stopped). Resident #45's current active comprehensive care plan revealed a focus area desiring Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF700Nov 20, 2025
Based on observations, record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to assess entrapment risk and failed to attempt alternatives prior to siderail use for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #11, Resident #40) reviewed for side rails. Findings included: 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertensive heart disease, chronic kidney disease and heart failure. Review of Resident #11's electronic medical record revealed an assessment titled bed rail assessment dated [DATE] and completed by the Director of Nursing (DON). The assessment revealed Resident #11 used bilateral side rail/assist bars (u-shaped grab bars) on her bed. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF550Mar 9, 2022
Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience by standing over a resident while providing feeding assistance for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dignity (Resident #28). Findings included: Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #28's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated dated dated [DATE] indicated she had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living. On 3/06/22 at 12:34 PM an observation was made of Nurse Aide (NA) #1 standing at Resident #28's bedside while feeding the resident her lunch. The resident's head of bed was in an upright position and the NA stood above the resident's eye level during the dining experience. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF712Mar 9, 2022
Based on record reviews, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to ensure Physician visits were performed every sixty days as required for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for physician services (Resident #16). Findings included: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses [MEDICAL RECORD OR PHYSICIAN ORDER] . A review of Resident #16's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated dated dated [DATE] indicated she had severe cognitive impairment and required limited assistance for most activities of daily living. Review of progress notes revealed that notes were written, signed, and dated by the NP for several consecutive visits with the most recent one dated 12/31/21. […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 32 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Nov 20, 2025Standard2 findings
- Mar 9, 2022Standard2 findings
- Oct 10, 2019Standard and complaint1 finding
- Sep 10, 2019Complaint1 finding
- Nov 8, 2018Standard1 finding
- Oct 12, 2017Standard3 findings
- Nov 19, 2015Standard and complaint4 findings
- Dec 11, 2014Standard2 findings
Show the 8 earlier surveys
- Oct 22, 2014Complaint1 finding · 1 harm
- Nov 15, 2013—1 finding
- Oct 18, 2012—3 findings
- Apr 25, 2012—2 findings
- Feb 14, 2012—2 findings
- Nov 10, 2011—3 findings
- May 4, 2011—1 finding
- Oct 21, 2010—3 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction