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: CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE (81 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 12, 2025
7
Serious findings on record
most recent May 12, 2025
$182,083
Fines, last 3 years
3.41
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 26, 2024 · F-0604 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Why it matters: Unneeded restraints can cause injuries, muscle loss, and deep emotional distress.
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: Jul 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 26, 2024 · 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: Jul 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 26, 2024 · F-0726 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.
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: Jul 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 23, 2024 · 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: Jan 30, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Dec 9, 2022 · F-0689
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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 30, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Dec 9, 2022 · F-0835
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Why it matters: Poor administration often shows up as understaffing, supply shortages, and care problems across the whole facility.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 30, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 12, 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 (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 29, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 12 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 complaintF-0689
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
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
View all 12 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
May 12, 2025
▲ 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
May 12, 2025
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 12, 2025
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
Jun 26, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604
Jun 26, 2024
▲ 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
Jun 26, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Apr 4, 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. · F-0761
Apr 4, 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
Feb 23, 2024
▲ 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 23, 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
Dec 9, 2022
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 9, 2022
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · F-0835
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2024
All citations:
7
Serious citations (G–L):
4
2025
All citations:
3
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
2022
2
2
K ▲
2024
7
4
J ▲
2025
3
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.
3 fines totaling $182,083, 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
May 12, 2025
Fine
$15,015
Jun 26, 2024
Fine
$84,078
Feb 23, 2024
Fine
$82,990
Feb 23, 2024
Payment Denial
32 days from Mar 21, 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:
3.41
North Carolina average:
4.01
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.54
North Carolina average:
0.64
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.07
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)
3.41
4.01
3.95
bottom 30% in North Carolina; bottom 32% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.54
0.64
0.69
top 48% in North Carolina; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.07
3.56
3.50
bottom 34% in North Carolina; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.36
0.41
0.48
top 42% in North Carolina; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
40.2
49.0
45.8
top 29% in North Carolina; top 37% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
35.7
45.7
42.9
top 33% in North Carolina; top 39% 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 3.39, RN 0.54, weekend 3.05.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.39 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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 The Laurels of Forest Glenn. 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.
Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF
NOT APPLICABLE
11/17/2025
Stobb, David
Individual
Corporate Officer
NOT APPLICABLE
02/01/2016
Stobb, David
Individual
ADP of the SNF
NOT APPLICABLE
02/01/2016
Taylor, Darryl
Individual
Operational/Managerial Control
NOT APPLICABLE
NO DATE PROVIDED
Taylor, Darryl
Individual
ADP of the SNF
NOT APPLICABLE
06/14/2023
All 15 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 Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care — 81 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.
CMS records place this facility in Wake, NC — 21 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.