North Carolina ›Fairview

Fleshers Fairview Health Care

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

3016 Cane Creek Road, Fairview, NC 28730 (opens Google Maps) · Buncombe County · (828) 628-2800· 106 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Jan 30, 1992 · 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 →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 22, 2025
6
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 22, 2025
$61,321
Fines, last 3 years
4.63
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 22, 2025 · F-0580

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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 22, 2025 · 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 22, 2025 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 28, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 22, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 22, 2025 · F-0725

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.

Why it matters: Understaffing means longer waits for help, missed care, and higher risk of falls and other harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 6, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 30, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    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. F-0580

  2. G · Actual 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. · from a complaint F-0684

  3. G · Actual 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. · from a complaint F-0686

View all 38 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Sep 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0580
Sep 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0684
Sep 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0686
Sep 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0725
Sep 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Sep 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0677
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0550
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · F-0728
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0773
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Sep 22, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Sep 22, 2025B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Sep 6, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 6, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Sep 6, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Sep 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Sep 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 6, 2024B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
May 18, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0677
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 23).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 23
Serious citations (G–L): 5

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202370E
202481G ▲
2025235G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $61,321, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 22, 2025Fine$51,288
Sep 22, 2025Payment Denial5 days from Oct 23, 2025
Sep 6, 2024Fine$10,033

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityNorth Carolina averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.63
North Carolina average: 4.01
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.11
North Carolina average: 0.64
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.93
North Carolina average: 3.56
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityNorth Carolina avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.634.013.95top 17% in North Carolina; top 20% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.110.640.69top 9% in North Carolina; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.933.563.50top 20% in North Carolina; top 25% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.580.410.48top 17% in North Carolina; top 24% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)46.249.045.8top 44% in North Carolina; bottom 47% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)31.345.742.9top 26% in North Carolina; top 32% 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 3.96, RN 0.95, weekend 3.36.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.96 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Fleshers Fairview Health Care. 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cole, SusanIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Dee, LisaIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Mitchell, CherylIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Cole, SusanIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Cole, SusanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Dee, LisaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Mitchell, CherylIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Mitchell, CherylIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009
Mitchell, CherylIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2009

All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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 prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
  • "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
  • "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 46% 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 28 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Givens Health Center5.3 miAsheville, NC★★★★★4/5
Swannanoa Valley Health and Rehabilitation6.0 miSwannanoa, NC★★★☆☆3/5
Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation6.1 miArden, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Deerfield Episcopal Retirement6.1 miAsheville, NC★★★★★5/5
Fletcher Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center6.5 miFletcher, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
The Laurels of Summit Ridge7.0 miAsheville, NC★★★★☆3/5
The Laurels of Greentree Ridge7.6 miAsheville, NC★★★★★4/5
NC State Veterans Home - Black Mountain8.1 miBlack Mountain, NC★★★★★3/5
Highland Farms8.2 miBlack Mountain, NC★★★★★4/5
Stonecreek Health and Rehabilitation8.8 miAsheville, NC★★★☆☆2/5
Elevate Health and Rehabilitation9.0 miAsheville, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5
Mountain Ridge Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente9.1 miBlack Mountain, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Buncombe, NC — 19 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Fairview →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345413.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details