Deficiency Index

Richfield Health Center - Salem

Salem, Virginia · CCN 495013

18 surveys since 2011, 7 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
171
Surveys
18
Harm or worse
7
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2011–2024
’11’15’20’24
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse7

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file14/18

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

The facility

Certified beds
112
Ownership
Non profit - Corporation
Chain
Independent
County
Salem City
Medicare-certified since
1967

CMS ratings

Overall
3
Health inspection
3
Staffing
3
Quality measures
3

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 84 facilities of 100–127 beds in Virginia.

Last survey on record

Dec 5, 2024

704 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 day4.344.48
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.61—
Annual nurse turnover51.5%48.1%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

Fines
$15,465 across 1 penalty

Federal civil money penalties and remedies as CMS currently publishes them. Amounts may still be under appeal.

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 harmG13.2%H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD2787.1%E39.7%F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 31 of the 171 citations on record.

Most frequently cited here

In CMS’s current monthly file.

  • F5842×

    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.

  • F6562×

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

  • F6572×

    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.

  • F6842×

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

  • F7702×

    Provide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Richfield Health Center - Salem, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • Actual harm, isolatedF760Dec 5, 2024

    Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to prevent significant medication errors for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents (Resident #1). The findings included: The facility staff failed to administer Resident #1's diabetic medication according to the medical provider's orders. This resulted in the need to administer an injectable medication to increase Resident #1's blood sugar on the morning of 5/16/24, with a subsequent transfer to a local emergency department. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/8/24, was signed as completed on 5/15/24. Resident #1 was assessed as being able to be understood, and as able to understand others. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF607Feb 8, 2023

    Based on staff interview, employee record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow their policy and procedure in regard to screening of new hires for 9 of 25 new hires. The findings included: The facility staff failed to obtain reference checks on new hire #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #9, #10, #16, and #17 and failed to obtain background checks on new hire #3 and #9 until 02/07/23. 02/07/23, the survey team requested employee files from the facility. 02/08/23, the surveyor reviewed 25 new hire records (employee records). New hire #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #9, #10, #16, and #17 employee records did not include reference checks. For new hires #3 and #9 background checks were not completed until 02/07/23. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF677Feb 8, 2023

    Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility policy review, the facility staff failed to provide activity of daily living (ADL) care for 4 of 23 current Residents, Residents #3, #4, #8, and #60. The findings included: 1. For Resident #3, the facility staff failed to provide nail care. Resident #3's fingernails were observed to be long. Resident #3's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, cerebral palsy, diabetes, and apraxia. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #3's annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/04/22 included a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 15. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF812Jul 29, 2021

    Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to prepare, distribute and serve food in a manner that would prevent foodborne illnesses. The findings included: 1. During initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed food in the active food supply that was opened and exposed. The dry storage room contained honey that had a best by date of March 2021. 07/27/2021 1:33 p.m., the surveyor entered the dietary kitchen on (TRC) the rehab center. The freezer was observed to have one box of chicken fritters and one box of hamburger patties that had been opened, the plastic bag had been ripped open exposing the items inside. The dry storage was observed to contain one jug of honey dated December 2020 and a best by date of March 2021. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF658Dec 5, 2024

    Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of practice related to assessing a resident's change in condition for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents (Resident #1). The findings include: The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #1 had assessments, including reassessments, completed and/or documented according to professional standards of practice. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/8/24, was signed as completed on 5/15/24. Resident #1 was assessed as able to make self understood and as able to understand others. […]

Read 25 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 25 of 171 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Dec 5, 2024Complaint4 findings · 1 harm
  • May 15, 2024Standard10 findings
  • Feb 8, 2023Standard7 findings
  • Jul 29, 2021Standard10 findings
  • Jan 22, 2021Complaint2 findings
  • Nov 25, 2020Infection control2 findings
  • Nov 9, 2018Standard and complaint13 findings
  • Aug 2, 2017Standard15 findings
Show the 10 earlier surveys
  • Sep 29, 2016Standard4 findings
  • Sep 30, 2015Standard13 findings
  • Dec 4, 2014Standard3 findings
  • May 21, 2014Complaint2 findings
  • Apr 3, 2014Standard and complaint17 findings · 1 harm
  • Feb 6, 2014Standard and complaint42 findings · 5 harm
  • Apr 11, 2013—11 findings
  • May 17, 2012—9 findings
  • Apr 20, 2011—5 findings
  • Jan 11, 2011—2 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