North CarolinaDurham

University Health and Rehabilitation Center

411 S Lasalle Street, Durham, NC 27705 · Durham County · 126 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1973

Part of chain: LIFEWORKS REHAB (64 facilities, chain avg rating 2.1★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
5
Serious findings on record
$129,754
Fines, last 3 years
3.31
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 · Nov 5, 2024 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.

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: Nov 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 5, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

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: Nov 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 9, 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 (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 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 6, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Mar 27, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 6, 2024 · F-0867 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.

Why it matters: Without a working quality program, 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: Mar 27, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (37)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 16, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 16, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 16, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jan 16, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Jan 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jan 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 5, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
May 9, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202370E
2024185J ▲
202540E
202680E

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)

3 fines totaling $129,754.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 5, 2024Fine$86,473
May 9, 2024Fine$10,033
Mar 6, 2024Fine$33,248

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityNorth Carolina avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.314.013.95bottom 22% in North Carolina; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.510.640.69bottom 47% in North Carolina; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.773.563.50bottom 11% in North Carolina; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.350.410.48top 44% in North Carolina; bottom 42% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)62.249.045.8bottom 19% in North Carolina; bottom 13% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)73.345.742.9bottom 10% in North Carolina; 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 3.31, RN 0.51, weekend 2.78. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bornstein, YisroelIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%09/21/2016
Hirsch, NissonIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%09/21/2016
LBS Capital Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%04/03/2022
NC Royal Healthcare LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%01/01/2020
Bornstein, YisroelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/21/2016
Bornstein, YisroelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2020
Hirsch, NissonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/21/2016
LBS Capital Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/03/2022
McNeill, StaceyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/28/2025
McNeill, StaceyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/24/2025
NC Royal Healthcare LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2020

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Pruitthealth-Durham0.7 miDurham, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5
Pettigrew Rehabilitation Center1.7 miDurham, NC★★★★☆3/5
Hillcrest Convalescent Center1.8 miDurham, NC★★★★★5/5
Croasdaile Village1.9 miDurham, NC★★★★☆4/5
The Forest at Duke INC2.7 miDurham, NC★★★★☆5/5
Pruitthealth-Carolina Point3.1 miDurham, NC★☆☆☆☆2/5
Accordius Health at Rose Manor LLC3.5 miDurham, NC★★☆☆☆2/5
Carver Living Center3.5 miDurham, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5
Parkview Health and Rehabilitation Center6.0 miChapel Hill, NC★★★★★5/5
Carol Woods6.2 miChapel Hill, NC★★★★★4/5
Southpoint Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center6.7 miDurham, NC★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Signature Healthcare of Chapel Hill7.3 miChapel Hill, NC★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Durham →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345070.