Deficiency Index

Charlottesville Health & Rehabilitation Center

Charlottesville, Virginia · CCN 495178

22 surveys since 2011, 6 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
149
Surveys
22
Harm or worse
6
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2011–2025
’11’15’20’25
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse6

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file14/22

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
105
Ownership
For profit - Corporation
Chain
LIFEWORKS REHAB
County
Albemarle
Medicare-certified since
1988

CMS ratings

Overall
2
Health inspection
2
Staffing
2
Quality measures
4

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Since 2021, this facility recorded somewhat more weighted findings than its peer group.

Weighted by harm level, against 77 for-profit facilities of 100–127 beds in Virginia.

Last survey on record

Sep 4, 2025

431 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day3.093.30
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.73—
Annual nurse turnover55.2%53.4%

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

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD3366.0%E1530.0%F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B12.0%C12.0%
CMS’s current file: 50 of the 149 citations on record.

Most frequently cited here

In CMS’s current monthly file.

  • F6563×

    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.

  • F6843×

    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.

  • F6893×

    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.

  • F8063×

    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.

  • F5802×

    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Charlottesville Health & Rehabilitation Center, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • Actual harm, isolatedF686Aug 4, 2021

    Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to ensure that two of three residents in the survey sample did not develop avoidable pressure ulcers. Resident #2 developed an avoidable facility acquired Stage III pressure ulcer on her right buttock. Resident #3 developed five avoidable facility acquired unstageable pressure ulcers, one of which was not identified by the facility until eschar (dark scab) was present over the area. This was identified as harm. Findings were: During the entrance conference on 08/03/2021 at approximately 9:15 a.m., the DON (director of nursing) was asked for a list of all residents in the facility with facility acquired pressure ulcers. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF558Sep 4, 2025

    Based on staff interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences were met regarding showers for one of two units (unit one), which did not provide showers due to low weekend staffing. The findings include:Review of the facilities PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) indicated weekend staffing excessively low for the January through March 2025 quarter.Review of the as worked weekend scheduled for March 2025 revealed on March 8th and 9th (Saturday and Sunday) that there were two certified nursing assistants scheduled on unit one for 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. Review of the resident census log for these dates indicated a census of 59 residents on unit one.On 9/2/25 at 2:30 the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed regarding scheduling nursing staff. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF605Sep 4, 2025

    Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure that unnecessary psychotropic medications were not administered to one resident, Resident #5 (R5) out of a survey sample of six residents. The findings included:Staff completed the admission medication reconciliation using the resident's at-home medications rather than the physician-verified hospital discharge orders, resulting in the administration of two antipsychotic medications, Amitriptyline 10 mg at bedtime and Trazodone 100 mg at bedtime, that were not prescribed upon discharge. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF725Sep 4, 2025

    Based on staff interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing in accordance with the facility assessment on one of two units (unit one), which had excessively low weekend staff. The findings include: Review of the facilities PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) indicated weekend staffing excessively low for the January through March 2025 quarter. Review of the as worked weekend scheduled for March 2025 revealed on March 8th and 9th (Saturday and Sunday), there were two certified nursing assistants scheduled on unit one for 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. Review of the resident census log for these dates documented a census of 59 residents on unit one. On 9/2/25 at 2:30 the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed regarding scheduling adequate nursing staff. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF803Mar 19, 2025

    Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to follow the menu for both meals observed, affecting multiple residents, including Resident #2-R2, Resident #3 - R3, Resident #4 -R4, and Resident #5-R5, who resided on two of two nursing units. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to prepare and serve foods in accordance with the posted menu. On 3/18/25, the daily menu was observed to be posted on each of the nursing units and outside the main dining room. The menu indicated breakfast included: scrambled eggs, sausage patty, cranberry muffin, orange juice, hot coffee or tea, and assorted milk options. On 3/18/25, at approximately 8:00 a.m., observations were conducted on each of the units. […]

Read 26 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 26 of 149 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Sep 4, 2025Complaint7 findings
  • Mar 19, 2025Complaint5 findings
  • Dec 4, 2024Complaint1 finding
  • Jul 10, 2024Standard and complaint14 findings
  • Apr 10, 2024Complaint3 findings
  • Dec 5, 2023Complaint2 findings
  • Mar 21, 2023Complaint4 findings
  • Feb 23, 2022Complaint1 finding
Show the 14 earlier surveys
  • Nov 9, 2021Standard6 findings
  • Aug 4, 2021Complaint2 findings · 1 harm
  • Jan 8, 2020Complaint3 findings · 1 harm
  • Dec 10, 2019Complaint1 finding
  • Feb 14, 2019Standard12 findings
  • Nov 2, 2017Standard and complaint8 findings · 2 harm
  • Oct 14, 2016Standard and complaint12 findings
  • Sep 3, 2015Standard7 findings
  • Dec 10, 2014Complaint1 finding
  • Sep 11, 2014Standard and complaint25 findings · 2 harm
  • Aug 1, 2013—16 findings
  • Feb 27, 2013—1 finding
  • Jul 26, 2012—8 findings
  • Jun 23, 2011—10 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