501 Oak Avenue, Waynesboro, VA 22980 (opens Google Maps) · Waynesboro City County · (540) 941-3100· 18 certified beds · avg 15 residents/day · certified since Aug 2, 2010 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 7, 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 (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: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 7, 2025 · F-0804 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Why it matters: Unappetizing or cold food leads residents to eat less, risking weight loss and malnutrition.
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: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 7, 2025 · F-0865 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Why it matters: Without a real quality improvement process, the same care problems tend to repeat instead of getting fixed.
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: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 3, 2025 | 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 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · from a complaint · F-0865 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better. · from a complaint · F-0944 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · from a complaint · F-0577 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0732 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or maintain an effective training program for its direct care staff, including training on how to communicate effectively with residents. · from a complaint · F-0941 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. · from a complaint · F-0949 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 15, 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 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 5).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 15 | 3 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $50,021.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025 | Fine | $50,021 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 7.68 | 3.67 | 3.95 | top 1% in Virginia; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.68 | 0.66 | 0.69 | top 3% in Virginia; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 6.22 | 3.21 | 3.50 | top 3% in Virginia; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 14% in Virginia; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 47.1 | 48.1 | 45.8 | top 46% in Virginia; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 75.0 | 48.2 | 42.9 | bottom 12% in Virginia; bottom 9% 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 7.44, RN 1.63, weekend 6.02.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (7.44 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Summit Square. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyons, Joshua | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
| Rowe, James | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2010 |
All 2 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| River Edge Rehabilitation and Nursing | 1.3 mi | Waynesboro, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Augusta Nursing and Rehabilitation | 3.9 mi | Fishersville, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Shenandoah Nursing Home | 4.5 mi | Fishersville, VA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Augusta Medical Ctr Skilled Ca | 5.2 mi | Fishersville, VA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Staunton Post Acute & Rehabilitation | 10.7 mi | Staunton, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Kings Daughters Community Health & Rehab | 11.2 mi | Staunton, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495405.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details