Carrington Place of Tappahannock
1150 Marsh Street, Tappahannock, VA 22560 · Essex County · 60 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1998
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.
All citations in the current public record (24)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop or maintain an effective training program for its direct care staff, including training on how to communicate effectively with residents. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide its staff with training in compliance and ethics — teaching employees the laws and ethical standards that govern how residents must be treated. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. |
| Jan 20, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Jan 20, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jan 20, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. |
| Jan 20, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 17).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 17 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Virginia avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 2.47 | 3.67 | 3.95 | bottom 3% in Virginia; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.50 | 0.66 | 0.69 | bottom 46% in Virginia; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.27 | 3.21 | 3.50 | bottom 7% in Virginia; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.43 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 29% in Virginia; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 56.3 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 32% in Virginia; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 48.2 | 42.9 | bottom 30% in Virginia; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.86, RN 0.57, weekend 2.63. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who runs your activities program, what are their qualifications, and can I see this week's activity calendar?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "How does your quality improvement program work, and can you share a recent example of a problem you found and fixed?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern Neck Senior Care Community | 5.9 mi | Warsaw, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
All facilities in Tappahannock →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495328.