Summit Square
501 Oak Avenue, Waynesboro, VA 22980 · Waynesboro City County · 18 certified beds · avg 15 residents/day · certified since Aug 2, 2010
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
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 self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · 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): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (27)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Dec 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint |
| Feb 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 5).
| 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
1 fine totaling $50,021.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025 | Fine | $50,021 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| 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, 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. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Who owns this facility
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 |
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?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "How does your quality improvement program work, and can you share a recent example of a problem you found and fixed?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| 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 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Waynesboro →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 495405.