How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Deep Creek Health & Rehabilitation
1017 George Washington Highway North, Chesapeake, VA 23323 (opens Google Maps) · Chesapeake City County · (757) 485-5500· 120 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 1998 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ARK POST ACUTE NETWORK (4 facilities, chain avg rating 1.7★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 19, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 44 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0880
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint F-0925
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
View all 44 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint · F-0582 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0645 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Jul 22, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0947 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0645 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · F-0687 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0810 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 16, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2021
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 9 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityVirginia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.05
Virginia average: 3.67
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.46
Virginia average: 0.66
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.59
Virginia average: 3.21
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Virginia avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.05 | 3.67 | 3.95 | bottom 27% in Virginia; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.46 | 0.66 | 0.69 | bottom 39% in Virginia; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.59 | 3.21 | 3.50 | bottom 24% in Virginia; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.18 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 15% in Virginia; bottom 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 65.9 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 11% in Virginia; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 63.6 | 48.2 | 42.9 | bottom 23% in Virginia; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.05, RN 0.46, weekend 2.60.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.05 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Deep Creek Health & Rehabilitation. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Coast Commonwealth LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 96% | 03/01/2020 |
| Bridges, Roy | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2018 |
| Bryant, Tameika | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/15/2015 |
| Justiniano, Kimberly | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Ark Post Acute Network — 4 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- The Canyons Post-Acute — Colton, CA · overall 2/5
- Pines Retirement Center of Baton Rouge — Baton Rouge, LA · overall 1/5
- White Oak Post Acute Care — Baton Rouge, LA · overall —/5SFF
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
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 leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How is pest control handled here, and when was the last treatment or inspection?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Virginia midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 66% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 37 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portside Health & Rehab Center | 2.1 mi | Portsmouth, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Autumn Care of Portsmouth | 3.3 mi | Portsmouth, VA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Portsmouth Health and Rehab | 4.4 mi | Portsmouth, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Chesapeake Health and Rehabilitation Center | 5.7 mi | Chesapeake, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Harbor's Edge | 5.7 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Oak Grove Health & Rehab Center, LLC | 5.9 mi | Chesapeake, VA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Signature Healthcare of Norfolk | 6.4 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Norfolk Health Care Center | 6.5 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Maimonides Health Center of Virginia Beach | 7.2 mi | Virginia Beach, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Northern Cardinal Rehabilitation and Nursing | 7.7 mi | Suffolk, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Ghent Health and Rehabilitation | 7.8 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Care of Chesapeake | 8.0 mi | Chesapeake, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495330.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).