How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Norview Heights Rehabilitation and Nursing
827 Norview Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23509 (opens Google Maps) · Norfolk City County · (757) 853-6281· 60 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1996 · 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: EASTERN HEALTHCARE GROUP (18 facilities, chain avg rating 1.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Oct 28, 2021
1
Serious findings on record
most recent May 17, 2018
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.84
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 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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 17, 2018 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 17, 2018 · 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): 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: Mar 16, 2018 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 46 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0550
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 F-0580
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
View all 46 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0580 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Oct 28, 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 |
| Oct 28, 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 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 28, 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 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Oct 28, 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 |
| Oct 28, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0677 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy. · F-0691 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0758 |
| Aug 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 17, 2018 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| May 17, 2018 | 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 17, 2018 | 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| May 17, 2018 | 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 |
| May 17, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| May 17, 2018 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2018
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2019
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2021
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2019 | 18 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
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: 2.84
Virginia average: 3.67
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.45
Virginia average: 0.66
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.30
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) | 2.84 | 3.67 | 3.95 | bottom 14% in Virginia; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.45 | 0.66 | 0.69 | bottom 37% in Virginia; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.30 | 3.21 | 3.50 | bottom 8% in Virginia; bottom 5% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 29% in Virginia; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 69.6 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 5% in Virginia; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 62.5 | 48.2 | 42.9 | bottom 24% in Virginia; bottom 19% 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 3.24, RN 0.52, weekend 2.62.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.24 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Norview Heights Rehabilitation and Nursing. 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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JJ United Tr | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 01/31/2024 |
| VA SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/01/2022 |
| Marshall-Hodges, Kelli | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
| Shapiro, Akiva | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
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 Eastern Healthcare Group — 18 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.
- Old Dominion Rehabilitation and Nursing — Newport News, VA · overall 1/5abuse
- Old Southwest Health and Rehabilitation — Roanoke, VA · overall 1/5
- River Edge Rehabilitation and Nursing — Waynesboro, VA · overall 1/5abuse
- Seven Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing — Lynchburg, VA · overall 1/5SFF
- Star City Rehabilitation and Nursing — Roanoke, VA · overall 2/5
- Thalia Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing — Virginia Beach, VA · overall 1/5
- Twin Lakes Rehabilitation and Nursing — South Hill, VA · overall 3/5
- Bay Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing — Virginia Beach, VA · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 17 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "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?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
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 70% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghent Health and Rehabilitation | 1.8 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Norfolk Health Care Center | 2.6 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Signature Healthcare of Norfolk | 3.1 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lake Taylor Hosp | 3.2 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Harbor's Edge | 3.4 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Autumn Care of Norfolk | 3.5 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Portsmouth Health and Rehab | 4.7 mi | Portsmouth, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cypress Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.0 mi | Virginia Beach, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Waterside Health & Rehab Center | 5.1 mi | Norfolk, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Maimonides Health Center of Virginia Beach | 6.2 mi | Virginia Beach, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Care of Portsmouth | 6.8 mi | Portsmouth, VA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bayside Health & Rehabilitation Center | 6.8 mi | Virginia Beach, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495309.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).