Hearth Record

Stonerise Home Health South Charleston

A home health agency in Charleston, West Virginia 25304

700 Chappell Road, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. (304) 757-9333.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.

The short answer

Record last released by CMS on Oct 21, 2026.

The last 24 months 2 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Aug 2026. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean3
Star ratings
CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
Inspection (survey)
A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
Deficiency, citation, violation
What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.

What did inspectors find?

The last inspection on record was on Aug 19, 2026: a recertification inspection.

2 deficiencies cited in the last three years.

Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

When those deficiencies happened

2 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Aug 2026. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 24, 2026.

2 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.

Each deficiency, as cited

Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.

Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

Aug 19, 2026: recertification inspection1 deficiency
  • Infection Prevention

    The inspectors’ words, 779 words

    “Infection Prevention CFR(s): 484.70(a) Standard: Infection Prevention. The HHA must follow accepted standards of practice, including the use of standard precautions, to prevent the transmission of infections and communicable diseases. This Standard is not met as evidenced by: Based on observation, document review, and interview, the facility failed to follow accepted standards of practice to prevent infection in one (1) of one (1) patient, (#9), observed during a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line dressing change. This failure increases the potential for infection for all patients requiring PICC line dressing changes. A review of the website cdc.gov for the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections (2011); dated: 02/28/24; revealed: “2. Prepare clean skin with a >0.5% [greater than zero point five percent] chlorhexidine preparation with alcohol before central venous catheter and peripheral arterial catheter insertion and during dressing changes. If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, tincture of iodine, an iodophor, or 70% [seventy percent] alcohol can be used as alternatives.” A policy titled: “Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) dressing change;” revised 09/15/25; was reviewed, and stated: “...Equipment: Antiseptic agent (alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate solution containing at least 2% [two percent] chlorhexidine gluconate preferred; if contraindicated, use an iodophor [such as povidone iodine] or 70% [seventy percent] alcohol…Many facilities stock a commercially prepared or facility-prepared sterile dressing change kit that contains the necessary supplies…Implementation:…Clean the patient’s skin using an antiseptic agent (alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate solution containing at least 2% [two percent] chlorhexidine gluconate preferred; if contraindicated, use an iodophor [such as povidone iodine] or 70% [seventy percent] alcohol. Apply using a single-use sterile applicator containing antiseptic solution. Allow the solution to fry completely without fanning, wiping, or blowing. Apply alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate solution with an applicator using a gentle back-and-forth motion for 30 [thirty] seconds. Allow the area to dry completely. Apply povidone-iodine solution using a swab. Begin at the intended insertion site and move outward in concentric circles. Allow the solution to dry completely (typically at least 2 [two] minutes.” A review of the policy titled: “Home Health Bag Technique;” effective date: 09/15/24; was reviewed and stated: “The bag is placed on a clean surface in the car and in the home. If this is not possible, a barrier (i.e. newspaper, paper towel, etc.) is to be placed under the bag or the bag is to be hung from a door knob or chair…” A review of the medical records for patient #9 revealed the following allergies: acetaminophen, hydrocodone, and penicillins. An observation was conducted on 08/18/26 from 10:15 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. at the home of patient #9. Staff #1 prepared an area at the patient’s dining room table for a dressing change to the PICC line in the left antecubital space, and a lab draw from the PICC line. The patient and the nurse donned a face mask for the procedure. Note, all the supplies were placed directly on the surface of the patient’s table and placemats without the use of a secondary barrier. The barrier was used from the sterile dressing kit appropriately. The dressing kit contained an alcohol swab, but no chlorhexidine or iodine. After removing the dressing, the nurse cleaned the debris at the insertion site but did not cleanse the surrounding skin in either a back and forth or circular motion and allow time for drying before placing the dressing. Staff #1 then picked up the syringes and lab tubes off the patient’s table, drew blood from the PICC line according to policy, and placed the blood-filled syringe and tubes back on the surface of the table while picking up the trash for discarding. An interview was conducted on 08/20/26 at 9:45 a.m. with staff #2, who stated: “The company only puts an alcohol cleanser in our PICC line dressing kits. They don’t supply chlorhexidine or iodine swabs any more. The company didn’t think it was necessary to include them because the CDC doesn’t require it anymore for the prevention of infection.” Regarding the PICC line dressing change process observed for patient #9, staff #2 concurred that the insertion site was not cleaned appropriately per protocol. Regarding laying down a barrier for supplies, staff #2 stated: “Our policy does not address laying a barrier down for supplies, just the bag. Our process is to remove one piece of equipment from the bag at a time, clean it after use, and place it back in the bag. In this situation, I would have used a second barrier.” Later, 08/20/26 at 10:25 a.m., staff #2 confirmed that after speaking with corporation, all were in agreement that a second barrier should have been used for patient #9.”

    Rule G0682. Standard-level.

Feb 14, 2024: recertification inspection1 deficiency
  • Develop Ep Plan, Review And Update Annually

    The inspectors’ words, 773 words

    “Develop EP Plan, Review and Update Annually CFR(s): 484.102(a) §403.748(a), §416.54(a), §418.113(a), §441.184(a), §460.84(a), §482.15(a), §483.73(a), §483.475(a), §484.102(a), §485.68(a), §485.542(a), §485.625(a), §485.727(a), §485.920(a), §486.360(a), §491.12(a), §494.62(a). The [facility] must comply with all applicable Federal, State and local emergency preparedness requirements. The [facility] must develop establish and maintain a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that meets the requirements of this section. The emergency preparedness program must include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (a) Emergency Plan. The [facility] must develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that must be [reviewed], and updated at least every 2 years. The plan must do all of the following: * [For hospitals at §482.15 and CAHs at §485.625(a):] Emergency Plan. The [hospital or CAH] must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local emergency preparedness requirements. The [hospital or CAH] must develop and maintain a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that meets the requirements of this section, utilizing an all-hazards approach. * [For LTC Facilities at §483.73(a):] Emergency Plan. The LTC facility must develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that must be reviewed, and updated at least annually. * [For ESRD Facilities at §494.62(a):] Emergency Plan. The ESRD facility must develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that must be [evaluated], and updated at least every 2 years. . This Standard is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review, documentation review, and interview, it was revealed the facility failed to update or maintain their Emergency Management Plan with current required information. The failure to maintain current information has the potential to have a negative impact on all staff and patients in the agency. A review of the record, titled “Emergency Management Plan (EPP) Notebook” revealed that the agency did not have a current updated license, no evidence of any insurance, an evacuation plan for the agency, and no evidence that the plan has been reviewed since 2021. The (EEP) notebook still had the previous address of the facility and the evacuation plan for a different location. The facility failed to update relevant location, emergency fire exit information and required emergency preparedness information. The current address evacuation plan was not added to the notebook to replace the old evacuation plan. There was no evidence of the staff being trained on a new evacuation plan for the current agency. An interview was conducted with Employee #1 on 2/13/24, at 1:00 p.m. Employee #1 states, “We review the EPP quarterly in our Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement [QAIP] meetings. Our last top table exercise was done in 2023, and our EPP for the patients is reviewed weekly by staff. The EPP Notebook has not been reviewed since 2021.” An interview was conducted with Employee #1 on 2/14/24 at 12:25 p.m. Employee #1 states, “There has not been any training to the staff on the evacuation plan in this new building. I did not think of it until asked on 2/12/24 about the evacuation plan on the walls of this building.” A review of the policy, titled “Emergency Management Plan” dated 10/2017. The policy states, “Purpose: To establish a plan which will allow for the continuation of services in the event of a disaster affecting the organization or the community … Policy … Planned evacuation routes will be known or identified and alternated means of transportation for personnel … Procedures … 9. An annual evaluation of the organization’s hazard vulnerability analysis and emergency management plan, including its objectives, scope, functionality, and effectiveness will be conducted. The annual evaluation may be based on the drill evaluation or actual implementation of the emergency management plan. 10. Organization leadership will provide for orientation and education of all personnel regarding participation in the emergency management plan. Education will be provided during orientation and annually.” A review of the policy, titled “Emergency Plan Policy” dated 5/1/2021. The policy states, “Policy: The agency develops and implements and emergency plan based on a risk assessment and using an “all hazard” approach, which provides an integrated system for emergency planning that focuses on capacities and capabilities. Purpose: To describe the Agency’s approach to responding to internal and external emergencies that would suddenly and significantly affect the need for services, plans for patients or the ability to provide such services. An emergency is defined as a natural or man-made disaster that significantly disrupts the Agency’s environment, disrupts care and service or results in sudden, significant change or increase in demand for Agency services. Procedure: 1. The emergency plan includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: The Agency has developed and maintains an emergency plan and policies that are reviewed and updated at least every two years.””

    Rule E0004. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Aug 19, 2026Recertification inspection1 deficiency cited
Feb 14, 2024Recertification inspection1 deficiency cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified home health agency since Jul 27, 2006.
  • Ownership: proprietary (for profit).
  • No deficiency on record in the last three years.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

Has anything been proven against it?

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for home health agencies, so none are shown.
  • 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

Who does the caring?

  • Offers nursing care, physical therapy, speech pathology and medical social services.
  • Doesn’t offer occupational therapy and home health aide services.
  • CMS doesn’t publish staffing levels for home health agencies.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Who owns it?

  • Stonerise at HOME Holdings LLC owns 100% directly since Jan 1, 2024.
  • 3 owners or officers are people: Ryan S Mcelhinny (corporate officer, 100%); Katosha Smith Noe (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Charles Stoltz (corporate officer, 100%).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Agency All Owners and Home Health Agency Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Stonerise at HOME Holdings LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Jan 1, 2024
Sr Hc Holdings, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 1, 2022
Next Hh&h Holdings, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies50%Jul 1, 2022
Post-Acute Holdings, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies50%Jul 1, 2022
Rrw, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies46.74%Jul 1, 2022
I. Rosedale Irrevocable TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies15.58%Jul 1, 2022
Wilheim Family Investment Company, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies15.58%Jul 1, 2022
I. Rosedale Family Investment Company Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies15.58%Jul 1, 2022
Rosedale Family Investment Company, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies15.58%Jul 1, 2022
S.l. Rosedale Irrevocable TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies15.58%Jul 1, 2022
R.s. Wilheim Irrevocable TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies7.95%Jul 1, 2022
Ronald S Wilheim 2012 Spousal TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies7.63%Jul 1, 2022
C.r. Stoltz Family Investment Company Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies3.26%Jul 1, 2022
C.r. Stoltz Irrevocable TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies3.26%Jul 1, 2022

How do patients fare?

  • CMS rates its quality of patient care 2 of 5.
  • Patients rate it 3 of 5 in CMS’s patient survey (195 surveys completed): 88% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 80% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS compares it with the national rate: discharged to the community, the same; potentially preventable hospital stays, the same; potentially preventable readmissions after discharge, the same.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies and Home Health Patient Survey. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Quality of patient care ratingCMS star rating, 1 to 5 in half stars2 of 5
Patient survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of the agency’s patients, 1 to 53 of 5
Discharged to the communityCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate82.24% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable hospital staysCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate11.67% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable readmissions after dischargeCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate4.79% (same as the national rate)

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 6 agencies CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 25304, where this agency’s office is, 6 have a quality of patient care rating; the middle one is 3.5 of 5, and this one is rated 2 of 5.
Source:

CMS, Home Health ZIP Codes and Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

The 6 agencies CMS lists serving ZIP code 25304
PlaceQuality rating
Adoration Home Health4.5
Stonerise Home Health South Charleston This home health agency2
Mountaineer Homecare3
Home Health of West Virginia4
Centerwell Home Health4.5
Personal Touch Home Care of W. VA, Inc.2.5

What the record doesn’t say

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for home health agencies, so none are shown.
  • Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
  • QCOR says some of its home health reports are accurate or available only through May 19, 2021, because of a systems migration.
  • Many home health agencies are inspected by a private accrediting organisation instead of the state, and QCOR’s home health file doesn’t appear to include those inspections: no inspection on record here doesn’t mean none took place.

Sources

If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.

Source:

This copy of the record was made on Oct 24, 2026.

From the agency

The public record above comes first. Anything the agency adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.

Replies

None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the agency will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.

Paid listing

None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the agency”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 28, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.