North Carolina ›Elizabeth City
Elizabeth City Health and Rehabilitation
1075 Us Highway 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 · Pasquotank County · 170 certified beds · avg 151 residents/day · certified since Feb 13, 1967
Part of chain: SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION (18 facilities, chain avg rating 4.2★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 22, 2023 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.
Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Nov 30, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 22, 2023 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Nov 30, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 22, 2023 · F-0726 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.
Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Nov 30, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 28, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Nov 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 27, 2023 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Jun 9, 2022 (Past Non-Compliance)
All citations in the current public record (22)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2025 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Apr 5, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. |
| Apr 5, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 5, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. |
| Nov 22, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint |
| Nov 22, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint |
| Nov 22, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint |
| Nov 22, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint |
| Oct 28, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Oct 28, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Jan 27, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 1).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 18 | 5 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | B |
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)
1 fine totaling $77,760, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2023 | Fine | $77,760 |
| Oct 28, 2023 | Payment Denial | 14 days from Nov 16, 2023 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | North Carolina avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.80 | 4.01 | 3.95 | top 41% in North Carolina; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.25 | 0.64 | 0.69 | bottom 4% in North Carolina; bottom 5% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.32 | 3.56 | 3.50 | top 46% in North Carolina; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.48 | bottom 22% in North Carolina; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 23.7 | 49.0 | 45.8 | top 3% in North Carolina; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 45.7 | 42.9 | top 45% in North Carolina; bottom 49% 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 3.89, RN 0.25, weekend 3.40. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sprenger, Christopher | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/01/2016 |
| Elizabeth City Healthcare Properties, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| Waring, Tina | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/17/2022 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
- "If you ever planned to discharge or transfer my family member, how much written notice would we receive and how could we appeal?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laurel Park Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 1.1 mi | Elizabeth City, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 14.2 mi | Hertford, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Currituck Health & Rehab Center | 17.3 mi | Barco, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Elizabeth City →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345036.