440 Ingram Road, King, NC 27021 (opens Google Maps) · Stokes County · (336) 983-4900· 96 certified beds · avg 89 residents/day · certified since Jul 11, 1991 · 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 →
Part of chain: SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP (126 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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 · Jul 11, 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Mar 23, 2024 · F-0660 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving.
Why it matters: Poor discharge planning can send a resident home or elsewhere without the support, equipment, or follow-up care they need.
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: Apr 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jan 19, 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: Dec 18, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 17, 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: Feb 7, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. F-0865
The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. F-0645
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0865 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Jul 11, 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 |
| Jul 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jul 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Jan 17, 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 |
| Jan 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Jan 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0684 |
| Mar 23, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Mar 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents information about how to apply for and use Medicare and Medicaid benefits. · from a complaint · F-0579 |
| Mar 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Mar 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · from a complaint · F-0661 |
| Jan 19, 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 |
| May 11, 2023 | 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 |
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 5 | 2 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 6 | 2 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 0 | F |
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 →
3 fines totaling $110,113.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2025 | Fine | $44,117 |
| Mar 23, 2024 | Fine | $49,544 |
| Jan 19, 2024 | Fine | $16,452 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.49 | 4.01 | 3.95 | bottom 35% in North Carolina; bottom 36% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.69 | bottom 19% in North Carolina; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.10 | 3.56 | 3.50 | bottom 37% in North Carolina; bottom 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.41 | 0.48 | bottom 26% in North Carolina; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 77.8 | 49.0 | 45.8 | bottom 3% in North Carolina; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 71.4 | 45.7 | 42.9 | bottom 14% in North Carolina; bottom 11% 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 3.58, RN 0.38, weekend 3.18.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.58 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Village Care of King. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWBV Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/30/2019 |
| Musick, Amy | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2019 |
| Saber Governance LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2019 |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2019 |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2019 |
| Weisberg, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2019 |
| Weisberg, William | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2019 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Saber Healthcare Group — 126 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 125 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| King Health and Rehabilitation Center | 1.2 mi | King, NC | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Oak Forest Health and Rehabilitation | 7.9 mi | Winston Salem, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Salemtowne | 8.6 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mill Creek Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation | 8.6 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Brookridge Retirement Community | 9.8 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Arbor Acres United Methodist Retirement Community | 12.3 mi | Winston Salem, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Walnut Cove Health and Rehabilitation | 12.9 mi | Walnut Cove, NC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Willow Valley Center for Nursing and Rehabilitatio | 13.1 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Stokes County Nursing Home | 13.1 mi | Danbury, NC | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Oaks | 13.8 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Silas Creek Rehabilitation Center | 13.9 mi | Winston Salem, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Trinity Glen | 14.1 mi | Winston-Salem, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345381.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details