Franklin County Transitional Care

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 2% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 14% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 35 beds and averages 31.8 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.20 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.31 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.68 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.25 to 0.97 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

26 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2026-07-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse and neglect. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (#2, #14, and #28) reviewed for abuse prevention practices. The facility's failure to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse and neglect created harm for Resident #2 and #14 when staff failed to respond in a timely manner to her complaint of pain, and when they forcibly removed a washcloth from Resident #2; and when Resident #28 experienced psychosocial harm, fear, and decreased self esteem. Findings include: The facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy revised 1/23/25 documented: The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. [The facility] will actively prevent, identify and report any such situations. Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including constipation, chronic pain, and adult failure to thrive. a.…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-07-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, Food Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was cleaned and sanitized. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 33 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential foodborne illnesses and adverse health outcomes. Findings include:The FDA Code Section 4-602.12 Cooking and Baking Equipment documented food-contact surfaces of cooking equipment must be cleaned to prevent encrustation's that may impede heat transfer necessary to adequately cook food. Encrusted equipment may also serve as an insect attractant when not in use.On 7/24/26 at 2:37 PM, cooking saute pans and baking sheets were observed with a black encrusted residue which did not scrape off without effort.On 7/24/26 at 2:40 PM, the Dietitian stated the baking sheets, and saute pans should not have the black encrusted residue.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-07-24 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespread
  Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement its antibiotic stewardship program as required. This was true for all residents residing in the facility. This failure created the potential for adverse events, including inappropriate antibiotic use and development of multi drug resistant organisms. Findings include:A review of the facility's Antimicrobial Stewardship Protocol, revised 3/2/26, documented the facility must:-Assess residents for infection using standardized tools and criteria.-Use Lobes minimum criteria before initiating antibiotics.-Provide education to prescribing practitioners and nursing staff.-Require antibiotic orders to include indication, dose, and duration. A review of stewardship documents received 7/27/26 at 4:19 PM documented the following concerns identified by the facility on 4/16/26:-The facility lacked a defined diagnostic algorithm.-Point Click Care charting was not aligned with McGeer's or Lobes criteria.-Reflex urine cultures were being performed without indication.-UTI antibiotic courses…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-07-24 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents medical records were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systemically organized. This was true for 4 of 6 residents (#2, #3, #4, and #14) reviewed for RNA services. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if resident's records did not show physician ordered services were being completed related to resident's rehabilitation programs. Findings include:The facility's Restorative Nursing Program, dated 5/18/20, documented maintenance and restorative services will be provided to residents designed to maintain or improve a resident's ability to the highest practicable level. Restorative aides will implement the plan and for a designated period, perform the activities, and document on the Restorative Aide Worksheet. 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a long-lasting disease where the body's…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were implemented and maintained for 7 of 32 residents who resided in the facility. This failure created the potential for cross contamination, increased risk of infection, and adverse events. Findings include: The CDC's website accessed [DATE] titled Considerations for Use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Skilled Nursing Facilities, documents that traditional Standard Precautions are insufficient to prevent MDRO (Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms) spread in nursing homes, where residents often have:-Chronic wounds-Indwelling medical devices-High levels of physical contact with staff-Long lengths of stay-Frequent MDRO colonizationThe CDC further states EBP must be used for residents who:-Have unhealed wounds or chronic skin breakdown.-Have indwelling medical devices such as catheters, feeding tubes, tracheostomies, ports, and PICC lines.-Are colonized or…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, policy review, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a manner that supported and promoted dignity and respect. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #17) observed during a restorative nursing activity. This failure created the potential for embarrassment, social discomfort, and reduced willingness to participate in the restorative nursing program. Findings include: The facility's Resident Rights Policy (revised 9/22/22) stated, Each resident has a right to a dignified existence, self determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. On 7/22/26 at 9:29 AM, Resident #17 was observed ambulating in the hallway with a CNA as part of his restorative nursing ambulation program. During this observation, the resident's urinary catheter drainage bag was hanging from his waistband, fully visible, containing approximately 100 mL of bright yellow urine.On 7/22/26 at 9:30 AM, CNA #4 stated Resident #17 participates in his restorative nursing ambulation program six…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolated
  Prevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to prevent harm without adequately monitoring the side effects of psychotropic drug medications. This was true for 5 of 5 residents (#4, #6, #9, #19, and #29) whose medication side effect monitoring were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm for Resident #4 when her psychotropic medication was not monitored and when Residents #6, #9, #19, and #29 were not monitored for signs and symptoms related to psychotropic medication use. Findings include: A policy for psychotropic use was requested and not provided. 1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including anxiety, chronic pain syndrome, and a history of urinary tract infections. Drugs.com, accessed on 7/31/26, documented side effects of Clonazepam (an antidepressant) causes drowsiness, poor coordination and dizziness, along with memory disturbances, fatigue, and decreased appetite. An antidepressant care plan,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse and neglect were reported to the State Agency (SA) as required. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #2, #14, and #28) reviewed for allegations of abuse and neglect. The failure to report allegations in accordance with federal timeframes created the potential for unaddressed harm and lack of external oversight. Findings include:The facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy (revised 1/23/25) documented: The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. [The facility] will actively prevent, identify and report any such situations. 1. Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including constipation, chronic pain, and adult failure to thrive. a.A review of the facility's abuse investigation dated 6/2/25 documented the facility received a text message from CNA #3 alleging abuse involving CNA #5 and…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide an accurate and thorough report to the Long-Term Care Reporting Portal. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (#2, #14, and #28) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial harm if reports of resident verbal abuse or neglect were not thoroughly investigated to ensure resident safety. Findings include:A review of the facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy (revised 1/23/25) documented the facility will actively prevent, identify and report any such situations.1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including an open wound on her right lower leg, polyneuropathy (a medical condition where multiple peripheral nerves throughout the body are damaged at the same time), chronic venous hypertension on right lower extremity (a condition where sustained, elevated blood pressure occurs in the…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0627 — isolated
  Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided required written bed hold notification upon transfer out of the facility. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #8) whose record was reviewed for the discharge process. This failure created the potential for misunderstanding regarding the resident's right to return and the facility's obligation to maintain his bed during hospitalization or therapeutic leave. Findings include:A review of the facility's Transfer and Discharge Notification policy (revised 9/21/22) showed no documentation describing when the bed hold notice must be issued to residents upon transfer.Resident #8 was readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including thyroid cancer, dysphagia, and weakness.A record review documented a debulking (a procedure to remove as much as possible of a widespread cancer or tumor) was scheduled for 5/28/26.A Progress Note dated 5/28/26 at 10:55 AM, documented that Resident…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-07-24 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II to the designated state agency. This was true for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #3) whose record was reviewed for PASRR documentation. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if Resident #3's coordination of care was not completed between the facility and the designated state agency. Findings include:The facility's policy PASRR for Long Term Care, dated 12/20/24, documented the Social Services Director shall be responsible for keeping track of each resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care. Any resident exhibiting a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder will be referred to the state mental health authority for a level II resident review.Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a long-lasting disease where the body's immune system attacks…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

$23,001 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $23,001 — penalty dated 2026-07-24

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

What families pay in ID