How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Peak Resources - Alamance, INC
215 College Street, Graham, NC 27253 (opens Google Maps) · Alamance County · (336) 228-8394· 142 certified beds · avg 130 residents/day · certified since Nov 8, 1990 · 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: PEAK RESOURCES, INC. (8 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 5, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 1, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.87
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: 3/5 · 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 · Jul 1, 2026 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 1, 2026 · 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: Jun 23, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 9 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627
View all 9 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 1, 2026 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | 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 24, 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 |
| Apr 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867 |
| Sep 19, 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 |
| Aug 11, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 11, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0727 |
Inspection trend by year
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
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 facilityNorth Carolina averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.87
North Carolina average: 4.01
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.30
North Carolina average: 0.64
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.45
North Carolina average: 3.56
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | North Carolina avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.87 | 4.01 | 3.95 | top 38% in North Carolina; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.30 | 0.64 | 0.69 | bottom 7% in North Carolina; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.45 | 3.56 | 3.50 | top 37% in North Carolina; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.14 | 0.41 | 0.48 | bottom 7% in North Carolina; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 52.4 | 49.0 | 45.8 | bottom 41% in North Carolina; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 57.1 | 45.7 | 42.9 | bottom 33% in North Carolina; bottom 26% 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 3.43, RN 0.26, weekend 3.06.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.43 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Peak Resources - Alamance, INC. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hill, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Hill, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2018 |
| Peak Resources INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2011 |
All 3 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 Peak Resources, INC. — 8 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.
- Peak Resources - Brookshire, INC — Hillsborough, NC · overall 4/5
- Peak Resources - Charlotte — Charlotte, NC · overall 3/5
- Peak Resources - Gastonia — Gastonia, NC · overall 5/5
- Peak Resources - Pinelake — Carthage, NC · overall 4/5
- Peak Resources-Cherryville — Cherryville, NC · overall 4/5
- Peak Resources-Outer Banks — Nags Head, NC · overall 3/5
- Peak Resources-Wilmington, INC — Wilmington, NC · overall 1/5
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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
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 52% 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alamance Health Care Center | 1.6 mi | Burlington, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| White Oak Manor - Burlington | 1.9 mi | Burlington, NC | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Edgewood Place at the Village at Brookwood | 3.5 mi | Burlington, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Liberty Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center of | 5.5 mi | Burlington, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Twin Lakes Community | 6.7 mi | Burlington, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Compass Healthcare and Rehab Hawfields, INC. | 6.7 mi | Mebane, NC | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Ashton Health and Rehabilitation | 14.6 mi | McLeansville, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Peak Resources - Brookshire, INC | 18.3 mi | Hillsborough, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345337.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).