Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Rehabilitation Center Of Hampton during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions during catheter care for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter and during wound care for another resident with a chronic wound. In both cases, staff did not wear gowns as required by the care plans and facility policy, despite the presence of MDROs and ongoing EBP orders. These deficiencies were confirmed through observation and staff interviews.
Two residents were transported in wheelchairs without foot pedals, contrary to safety protocols. One resident with impaired cognition attempted to keep up with the wheelchair's speed using his feet, while another resident, who required total assistance, was pushed without pedals despite her preference. Staff had attended training on wheelchair safety, but deficiencies in practice were observed.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Catheter and Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement appropriate infection prevention and control practices during urinary catheter care and wound care for two residents. In the first instance, a resident with a neurogenic bladder and an indwelling urinary catheter required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) due to the presence of a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) and pressure wounds. The care plan specifically directed staff to wear a gown and gloves during high-contact care activities, including catheter care. However, during an observed catheter care procedure, a certified nursing aide did not wear a gown as required, despite being aware of the EBP protocol. In the second case, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, a history of progressive neurological conditions, and a pressure ulcer was also under EBP for a chronic wound. The care plan instructed staff to wear a gown and gloves during high-contact care activities, including wound care. During an observed wound care procedure, an LPN performed the treatment without wearing a gown, even though the care plan still listed EBP as an active intervention. The LPN believed EBP was no longer necessary due to the wound's condition, but the care plan had not yet been updated to reflect this change. Both incidents were confirmed through staff interviews and direct observation. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that staff were expected to follow EBP protocols as outlined in the care plans and facility policy, which required gown and glove use for residents with indwelling devices or chronic wounds. The failure to adhere to these protocols resulted in the identified deficiencies.
Failure to Ensure Safe Wheelchair Transportation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safe transportation of residents within the facility, specifically in the use of wheelchairs without foot pedals. Resident #10, who has severely impaired cognition and requires assistance with transfers, was observed being pushed in a wheelchair without foot pedals by a dietary aide. During this incident, Resident #10 attempted to keep up with the speed by using his feet, which resulted in his socks catching on the floor multiple times. This action was contrary to the care plan interventions that instructed staff to ensure appropriate footwear and safety measures during mobilization. Similarly, Resident #8, who has intact cognition but requires total staff assistance for transfers, was also observed being pushed in a wheelchair without foot pedals by a registered nurse. Despite the resident's preference against using foot pedals, the care plan indicated the necessity of appropriate footwear and safety measures. The facility had previously conducted training sessions on wheelchair safety, which both staff members involved in these incidents had attended, yet the deficiency in practice was evident.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 15 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Hampton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franklin General Hospital | 1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Sheffield Care Center | 10.8 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Scenic Manor | 14.6 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| The Village Of Ackley | 15 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Rockwell Community Nursing Home | 17.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Rehabilitation Center Of Hampton.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.