Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · North Carolina

Clayton House

Clayton, NC · ~39 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
4.5
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Clayton House runs at 117% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade C.

Clayton House: 4.5 TCR = 117% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Clayton House safety composite

Clayton House scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

C

71/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 4.46 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Clayton House: 2.7 → 4.3 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 11.9 TCR · DART/TCR 0× in 2024

Clayton House's TCR rose 1.5 from 2.7 in 2016 to 4.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 11.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Clayton, NC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 4.5 · 117% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #118/356
  • PHOTO Elderwood Village at…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 12 inj
  • SIZE ~39 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Elderwood Village at Vestal (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · North Carolina employers → · Look up another →

Clayton House in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Clayton House averages 4.5 TCR (117% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Clayton House TCR series: 2016=2.7 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=2.9 · 2020=9.8 · 2021=5.6 · 2022=11.9 · 2023=3 · 2024=4.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Clayton House falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 73% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #118 safest of 356 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in North Carolina.

Clayton House (39 employees, TCR 4.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Clayton House
Clayton House (39 employees, TCR 4.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Clayton House has fewer employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 4.3 0.0 1 0 0
2023 3.0 0.0 1 0 0
2022 11.9 5.9 4 0 0
2021 5.6 0.0 2 0 0
2020 9.8 3.3 2 1 0
2019 2.9 0.0 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 2.7 2.7 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · NC · Clayton

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 77 employers in Clayton, NC · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Elderwood Village at Vestal 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR 10266 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Arcadia Senior Living Pace 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Taylor Community - Sugar Hill 4.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Taylor's Nursery-Louisburg 39 FTE
STATE-SIZE B & S Farming, Inc. 39 FTE
STATE-SIZE Jeffery C Lee Farms, INC 39 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sullivan Farms Inc. 39 FTE
CITY-NEAR GRIFOLS THERAPEUTICS LLC (CLAYTON) 1,587 FTE
CITY-NEAR DFP Clayton 808 FTE
CITY-NEAR LSAM DAPI-US 664 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, LP 644 FTE
NAT-TCR Stecker Machine Co., Inc. 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR White Bluff Plant 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Wako LLC 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Plastic Masterbatch Center 4.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Pirc-Tobin Construction, Inc. 39 FTE
NAT-SIZE 3500-DRC-ELLSWORTH 39 FTE
NAT-SIZE Realm Construction Company 39 FTE
NAT-SIZE CFS Egg Processing 39 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.