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: PRUITTHEALTH (95 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 22, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 23, 2026
$3,728
Fines, last 3 years
3.36
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 23, 2026 · F-0742 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Why it matters: Residents with mental health needs who go untreated can suffer worsening symptoms, distress, and isolation.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 15, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 10 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaintF-0742
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. · from a complaintF-0695
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 complaintF-0689
View all 10 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 23, 2026
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaint · F-0742
Jan 22, 2026
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. · from a complaint · F-0695
Nov 15, 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
Oct 3, 2024
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
Oct 3, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Oct 3, 2024
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
Oct 3, 2024
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
Oct 3, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805
Aug 15, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Aug 15, 2024
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 1).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2026
All citations:
2
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
2024
8
0
E
2026
2
1
J ▲
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.
1 fine totaling $3,728, 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.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Oct 11, 2023
Fine
$3,728
Oct 11, 2023
Payment Denial
22 days from Jan 11, 2024
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
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:
3.36
North Carolina average:
4.01
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
1.04
North Carolina average:
0.64
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.81
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)
3.36
4.01
3.95
bottom 25% in North Carolina; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
1.04
0.64
0.69
top 11% in North Carolina; top 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.81
3.56
3.50
bottom 13% in North Carolina; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.72
0.41
0.48
top 9% in North Carolina; top 15% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
40.6
49.0
45.8
top 30% in North Carolina; top 38% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
27.8
45.7
42.9
top 21% in North Carolina; top 25% 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 3.23, RN 1.00, weekend 2.70.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.23 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pruitthealth-Crystal Coast. 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.
All 13 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 Pruitthealth — 95 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.