How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Our Lady of Hope Health Center
13700 North Gayton Road, Richmond, VA 23233 (opens Google Maps) · Henrico County · (804) 360-1960· 75 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Aug 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 3, 2023
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.08
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint F-0755
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint F-0658
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842
View all 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Apr 17, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 17, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Dec 6, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Dec 6, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Dec 6, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0607 |
| Sep 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Sep 27, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Sep 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · from a complaint · F-0711 |
| May 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| May 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| May 3, 2023 | 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 3, 2023 | 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 |
| May 3, 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. · F-0761 |
| Dec 9, 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 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0607 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 3 | 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: 4.08
Virginia average: 3.67
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.39
Virginia average: 0.66
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.70
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) | 4.08 | 3.67 | 3.95 | top 22% in Virginia; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.39 | 0.66 | 0.69 | bottom 24% in Virginia; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.70 | 3.21 | 3.50 | top 21% in Virginia; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 41% in Virginia; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 67.3 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 9% in Virginia; bottom 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 58.3 | 48.2 | 42.9 | bottom 32% in Virginia; bottom 24% 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 4.19, RN 0.40, weekend 3.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Our Lady of Hope Health Center. 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 →
Non profit - Church related
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knestout, Barry | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 12/05/2017 |
| Blum, Jonathan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Blum, Jonathan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Blum, Jonathan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Catrambone, Joseph | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2024 |
| Catrambone, Joseph | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2024 |
| Knestout, Barry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2017 |
| Knestout, Barry | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2017 |
| Knestout, Barry | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2017 |
| Knestout, Barry | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2017 |
| Kreck, Michael | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| Kreck, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| Kreck, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
All 13 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "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 specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
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 67% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 13 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 28 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shalom Gardens Health & Rehabilitation | 2.4 mi | Richmond, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Canterbury Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.7 mi | Richmond, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Lakewood Manor | 3.2 mi | Richmond, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Cedarfield Pinnacle Living | 3.2 mi | Richmond, VA | —/5 | ||
| The Laurels of University Park | 3.9 mi | Richmond, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| August Healthcare at Richmond | 5.8 mi | Richmond, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Elizabeth Adam Crump Health and Rehab | 6.4 mi | Glen Allen, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Westport Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 6.5 mi | Richmond, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Parham Health Care & Rehab Center | 7.9 mi | Richmond, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Glenburnie Rehab & Nursing Center | 8.4 mi | Richmond, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Laurels of Willow Creek | 9.1 mi | Midlothian, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lakeside Health & Rehabilitation | 9.3 mi | Richmond, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Henrico, VA — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Rosedale Health & Rehabilitation — Richmond, VA · overall 1/5
- Westminster-Canterbury of Richmond — Richmond, VA · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495311.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).