← Back to search results

Majestic Care of Hopemont

TERRA ALTA, WV · Preston County · For profit - Corporation · 98 certified beds

📍 150 Hopemont Drive, Terra Alta, WV 26764  ·  📞 (304) 789-2411

Medicare ID: 51E148  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Feb 19, 2026

Overall Safety Score
39
out of 100
Critical Issues
Component Scores
5
Inspection
23
Staffing
36
Enforcement
✓ None
Complaints
43
Quality
📋 Last inspected: February 19, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
5
Staffing
23
Enforcement
36
Complaints
100
Quality Outcomes
43

What the numbers mean

Majestic Care of Hopemont scored 39 out of 100 — 25 points below the state average of 64.

📋 Inspections: 66 citations over the last 36 months — 32 more than the state average (34). 5 were rated serious (G+) — inspectors found actual or potential harm to residents. 9 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

🚨 Staffing: Staffing levels are well below average — this is a serious concern. Understaffing leads to worse resident outcomes. We strongly recommend asking for staffing schedules and speaking with current residents or family members before making any decision.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 1 enforcement action totaling $57,116 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Low complaint activity — few formal complaints from residents or families have triggered inspections. Ask if there is a family council you can speak with.

⚠️ Resident quality outcomes: Some quality measures are below national benchmarks. Areas like fall prevention, pain management, or medication use may warrant closer attention.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster., The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

66
Total citations
State avg: 34
5
Serious (G+)
State avg: 1.1
9
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

48
4
Hazardous Areas & Fire Risks
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
4
Electrical & Utility Safety
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$57,116
Total federal fines
1
Enforcement action

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 36/100 — 30 points below the state average of 66/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Nutritionally adequate menus — No harm, could worsen · Feb 19, 2026
Food sanitation & safety — No harm, could worsen · Feb 19, 2026
Infection prevention & control — No harm, could worsen · Feb 19, 2026

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
6.5% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Flu vaccination rate
14.0% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu this season. Higher is better.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Majestic Care of Hopemont

Majestic Care of Hopemont is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Terra Alta, Wv with 98 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 39/100, placing it in the Critical Issues — Proceed With Extreme Caution range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Feb 19, 2026. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 66 citations, including 5 serious findings and 9 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to inspection history, staffing, penalties and enforcement, quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Corporation.

🛑
Overall Assessment — Critical Issues — Proceed With Extreme Caution  ·  39/100
This facility has serious issues in the public record. This is among the lowest-scoring facilities in our coverage area.
What to do next: We strongly recommend exploring other options. If this facility is the only choice, require a written corrective action plan and speak with the state ombudsman before proceeding.
Federal Penalty: $57,116
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $57,116 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.
👥
Staffing Below Federal Minimum Standards
This facility provides 0.21 RN hours per resident per day — below the CMS minimum of 0.75 hours. Total nurse staffing is 2.38 hours per resident per day — below the CMS minimum of 2.87 hours. Understaffing is the strongest predictor of poor inspection outcomes. Ask specifically about RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing is below recommended levels. Ask about RN coverage on nights and weekends.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 5 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 23
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 5
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 36
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 100
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 43
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to WV State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility WV avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
39 64 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
5 54 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
23 54 ▼ Worse than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
36 66 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
100 85 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
43 64 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
66 34 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
5 1.1 ▼ Worse than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-02-19
30 citations
2024-11-20
3 citations
2024-06-06
24 citations
2024-03-27
4 citations
2024-02-09
5 citations  (5 serious)
2022-08-24
6 citations
2021-04-30
9 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-02-19 30 citation(s)
F0803 No harm, could worsen
Nutritionally adequate menus
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
K0918 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0291 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous areas must be protected
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
The facility had a problem with sprinkler coverage, maintenance, testing, or outage procedures. Sprinklers are a key fire-protection system that help control fires before residents are in danger.
K0531 No harm, could worsen
K0531
Fire and life safety requirement. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0805 No harm, could worsen
Food frequency & variety
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
K0222 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: exit doors must open properly
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.
K0321 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0756 No harm, could worsen
Drug regimen review
K0781 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: special hazard protection systems
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
K0920 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: power strips and extension cords
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
F0584 No harm, could worsen
F0584
K0923 No harm, could worsen
Gas safety: medical gas storage and handling
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0372 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barriers must be maintained
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.
F0577 No harm, could worsen
F0577
F0808 No harm, could worsen
F0808
F0806 No harm, could worsen
Resident food choice
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0807 No harm, could worsen
Fluid availability
F0604 No harm, could worsen
Prohibited staff behaviors
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
K0712 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire drills and staff preparedness
The facility had a problem with fire drills, evacuation planning, staff preparedness, or documentation showing that staff know what to do in an emergency.
F0800 No harm, could worsen
Dietary services provided
F0810 No harm, could worsen
F0810
K0311 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: vertical openings must be protected
The facility had a problem with general building fire-safety requirements, construction type, or fire-rated building features.
F0644 No harm, could worsen
Accuracy & completeness of assessments
Survey: 2024-11-20 3 citation(s)
F0804 No harm, could worsen
Therapeutic diets
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
F0609 No harm, could worsen
Timely reporting of alleged violations
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

⚠ Attention: 2 of 7 star-rated measures show rates above what\'s typically considered acceptable. This means the facility may be struggling in areas that directly affect residents\' day-to-day wellbeing — not just its inspection record.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
13.6% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
0.4% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
6.5% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
2.5% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Flu vaccination rate
14.0% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu. Nursing homes are high-risk environments for flu outbreaks. Anything below 90% warrants a question about the facility's vaccination policy.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
2.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
67.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
6.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
0.6% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
14.9% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
87.1% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
37.3% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
7.8% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Long Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay res…
1.3% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 1.0% Expected: 1.4%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days
★ Star rating
Number of outpatient emergency department visits …
2.9% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 2.7% Expected: 1.5%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 5 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. CMS data shows this facility is significantly below the state average for total nurse hours and RN-specific hours per resident day. What is the actual RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends — not the regulatory minimum, but what residents consistently receive?
  3. What is your 90-day CNA and nurse turnover rate? How do you ensure a resident sees the same familiar caregivers across a given week?
  4. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  5. Some resident outcome measures are below average here. What is your current approach to fall prevention, pain management, and quarterly medication review?
  6. 5 citations in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  7. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Staffing concerns — request staffing schedules and ask about agency nurse use
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-05-27
39 — Poor

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Majestic Care Of Hopemont?
Majestic Care Of Hopemont has an independently computed Safety Score of 39 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Majestic Care Of Hopemont located?
Majestic Care Of Hopemont is located in Terra Alta, WV. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Majestic Care Of Hopemont have?
Majestic Care Of Hopemont is certified for 98 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Majestic Care Of Hopemont?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on February 19, 2026. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Majestic Care Of Hopemont affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Majestic Care Of Hopemont, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 27, 2026.