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

Holden Heights

Greensboro, NC · ~49 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Holden Heights runs at 164% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade D.

Holden Heights: 6.2 TCR = 164% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Holden Heights safety composite

Holden Heights 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

65/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 6.23 per 100 workers

Safer than 58% 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

Holden Heights: 5.2 → 6.3 TCR

Peak year 2017 @ 21.2 TCR · DART/TCR 0× in 2021

Holden Heights's TCR rose 1.1 from 5.2 in 2016 to 6.3 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2017 at 21.2 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

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

Grade D · TCR 6.2 · 164% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #190/356
  • PHOTO Heritage Woods of Ma…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 14 inj
  • SIZE ~49 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Heritage Woods of Manteno (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Holden Heights in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Holden Heights averages 6.2 TCR (164% 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

Holden Heights TCR series: 2016=5.2 · 2017=21.2 · 2018=2.1 · 2019=0 · 2020=2.6 · 2021=6.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Holden Heights falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 58% 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 #190 safest of 356 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in North Carolina.

Holden Heights (49 employees, TCR 6.2) 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 Holden Heights
Holden Heights (49 employees, TCR 6.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Holden Heights has more 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
2021 6.3 0.0 1 1 0
2020 2.6 0.0 1 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 2.1 0.0 1 0 0
2017 21.2 14.1 9 0 0
2016 5.2 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · NC · Greensboro

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 · 920 employers in Greensboro, 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 Heritage Woods of Manteno 6.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Azura Wausau 6.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Northgate Plaza 6.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Seagrass Village of Panama City Beach - MC 6.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Zackly Rite Farms 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Taylor's Nursery-Raleigh 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Butterball Hatchery # 3 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Matthews Operations Center 49 FTE
CITY-NEAR MHCMH-Cone-Moses H Cone Memorial Hospital 3,806 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government - All Employees 3,270 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government 3,194 FTE
CITY-NEAR NCGRE - GREENSBORO HUB 2,447 FTE
NAT-TCR A.W. Farrell & Son - Dunkirk Office 6.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Sanderson Farms Laurel Hatchery 6.2 TCR
NAT-TCR PCS - Rancho Cordova 6.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Sodexo at Providence College-Raymond 6.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE 4769-711-Williams Sonoma 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE Byesville Sheet 6965 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE American Bus Corporation 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ruan Transport Corporation T-063 49 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.