No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Serenity Spring Senior Living At Arlington

100 Powell Drive, Arlington, OH 45814 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 50 certified beds · (419) 365-5115 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (419) 365-5115 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
$20,265 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • the CMS record shows $20,265 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS
Urgent care / clinic
301 W Wallace St · (419) 424-0180 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Grocery
400 N Main St · (419) 365-5427 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2200 Euclid Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased8.0%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.4%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.2%0.2%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.0%0.4%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms7.9%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.6%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened11.9%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication28.0%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.6%3.4%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control22.2%21.4%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.7%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.8%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine78.3%75.6%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission18.3%24.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.4%12.9%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.591.731.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.811.801.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

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.

50.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

50.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
55.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.34U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.15hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Met the expected recovery: 55.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 36 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — 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.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF50.3%CMS range 40.8–59.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.6%CMS range 6.4–14.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge55.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge41.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge44.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified97.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 4.3–14.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.141.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.58
RN hours/ resident / day
0.54
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.02
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.14
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.36
RN hoursweekends
36.1%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 41.5 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 is below 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.27 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-04-18)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2023-07-06)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-18 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure open food products were dated and covered in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents who the facility identified to all receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Observation on 04/15/24 at 8:20 A.M. of the kitchen revealed in the dry storage area, five bags of open pasta were not dated. In the walk-in refrigerator, two trays of mandarin oranges were not covered or dated and two bags of mozzarella cheese open with no date. In the walk-in freezer, one bag of Salisbury steak open with no date. In the reach-in refrigerator, there was one container of ham, one container of strawberries, and one container of dill pickles not dated. Interview on 04/15/24 at 8:30 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #500 verified the five bag of pasta, two trays of mandarin oranges, two bags of mozzarella cheese, one bag of Salisbury steak, one container of each ham, strawberries, and pickles were all not dated. DM #500 verified the mandarin oranges were also not…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on the facility's water management program information, staff interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to have an appropriate Legionella water management program in place. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the most recent Legionella documentation information revealed the facility's Legionella information contained both cold and hot water chlorine testing and eye wash station testing. The cold and hot water chlorine residual testing verified the facility had not conducted a chlorine residual testing since 11/29/23. The 2024 log for the eye wash station revealed the station was inspected (included running water for three minutes) on 02/01/24, 03/11/24, and 04/09/24. Interview on 04/18/24 at 9:00 A.M. and 9:45 A.M. with the Administrator verified the facility has not completed chlorine residual testing since November 2023. There was no evidence of flushing of stagnant water except for monthly inspections of the eyewash stations. 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 review of the medical record, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete for advanced directives for six (#2, #15, #22, #24, #28, and #30) of six residents reviewed for advanced directives and one (#22) resident reviewed hospice. The facility census was 33. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, cerebral atherosclerosis, occlusion and stenosis of unspecified carotid artery disease, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) without lower urinary tract symptoms, and encounter for palliative care. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the facility's provided care plans for Resident #22 revealed the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for advanced directives and hospice…

    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 date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    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, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure communication was maintained between the facility and dialysis center. This affected one (Resident #2) of one reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/22/24. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease and kidney transplant status. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was cognitively intact. Resident #2 was independent for activities of daily living. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #2 received dialysis services on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and check for thrill/bruit to fistula in right upper arm. There was no mention of where dialysis was performed with address and phone number in the physician orders for dialysis. Review of the care plan dated 02/22/24 revealed Resident #2 required hemodialysis related to end stage renal disease. The care plan did not include…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-07-06 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was used during food preparation and dishwashing. This affected one resident (#11) and had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Observation of meal service on 07/05/23 beginning at 11:52 A.M. revealed [NAME] #520 wearing plastic gloves and touching serving utensils, drawers, and the lid of the plate-warming machine. [NAME] #520 did not change her gloves and continued to plate Resident #11's meal. [NAME] #520 picked up a knife with her right hand, and held the ham in place with her left gloved hand and cut the ham into bite-sized pieces. [NAME] #520 then placed the plate on the meal cart and the meal cart left the kitchen to be passed out to residents. [NAME] #520 did not change her gloves during the observation. Interview on 07/05/23 at 12:00 P.M. with [NAME] #520 confirmed she touched Resident #11's ham with her left gloved hand which had touched several non-food items 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-06 · tag F0800 — pattern
    Provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate portions of protein to residents on texture modified diets. This affected seven residents (#6, #12, #19, #23, #27, #29, and #91) identified by the facility to be on texture modified diets. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Observation during meal service on 07/05/23 beginning at 11:52 A.M. revealed [NAME] #520 served pureed ham using a two-ounce scoop and minced and moist (chopped small) ham using a 1.625 ounce scoop. Interview on 07/05/23 at 12:25 P.M. with [NAME] #520 revealed she did not have a spreadsheet with serving sizes. [NAME] #520 further verified the appropriate serving sizes were listed on each resident's meal tickets. [NAME] #520 confirmed the portion size listed on the meal tickets for pureed ham was five ounces and confirmed she only provided a two ounce portion. [NAME] #520 confirmed the portion listed on the meal ticket for minced and moist ham was four ounces and confirmed she only provided a 1.625 ounce portion. [NAME] #520 confirmed the residents who…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-06 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 medical record review, observations, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the call lights were within reach of residents. This affected one (Resident #12) of five residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Record review for Resident #12 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #12 included acute kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, auditory hallucination, depression, and dementia. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had mildly impaired cognition, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was a one-person assist with activities of daily living. Review of Resident #12's care plans dated 02/09/20 revealed a focus for risk for falls. Interventions included to educate the resident to ask for assistance. Observation and interview on 07/03/23 at 9:20 A.M. revealed Resident #12 sitting in his wheelchair with his back to his…

    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 date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for a resident with a history of falling. This affected one (Resident #17) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 09/10/21 with diagnoses including chronic pain, insomnia, and a history of falling. Review of a progress note dated 06/02/23 revealed Resident #17 fell at approximately 3:00 A.M. while standing and attempting to remove her nightgown while a state tested nurse aide (STNA) was changing the chair pad. Resident #17 stumbled backwards due to her slip-on slippers. Review of an additional progress note dated 06/02/23 revealed a plan to remove the slip-on slippers and replace them with the new enclosed slippers. Review of the current care plan for Resident #17 revealed she was at risk for falls. Interventions included ensuring 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-06 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was on a fluid restriction had fluid allowances designated to ensure staff knew how much to give the resident at meals, snacks, and medication pass. This affected one (Resident #17) of one resident reviewed on a fluid restriction. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 09/10/21. Diagnoses included heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had intact cognition and was not on a therapeutic diet. Review of a physician order dated 05/16/23 revealed Resident #17 was on a 48-ounce fluid restriction (1,419 millimeters) daily. There was no fluid allocation listed in the physician order on how much fluids Resident #17 can receive at meals, snacks and medication pass for each day. Review of the current 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-06 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolated
    Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
    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, review of facility's infection control logs, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were receiving the correct antibiotics. This affected one (Resident #17) of five residents reviewed for antibiotic medications. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Record review for Resident #17 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and altered mental status. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had impaired cognition. Review of Resident #17's care plans dated 09/2022 revealed a focus area for increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTI). Interventions included to monitor and report any signs and symptoms of a UTI. Review of Resident #17's laboratory results dated [DATE] revealed the resident's urine culture was positive for E-Coli. On 05/17/23, the resident's culture results revealed the presence of…

    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 date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-20 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
    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 medical record review and staff interview; the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided a restorative nursing program as recommended to maintain current level of mobility. This affected one (#4) of one resident reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 43. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hypertension, hemiplegia, hypertension, dizziness, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, muscle weakness, overactive bladder, and abnormal posture. Review of the plan of care dated 05/22/19 revealed Resident #4 had a need for restorative intervention due to ADL self-care performance deficits/limited and physical mobility related to stroke as evidenced by assistance required from staff to performs her ADL. The goal was the resident will increase level of mobility walking to and from dining room with assistance of one. Interventions include: 1. Active range of motion:…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date 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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$20,265 in federal fines across 5 penalties.

  • $3,798 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
  • $3,418 — penalty dated 2024-02-12
  • $7,976 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
  • $1,899 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
  • $3,174 — penalty dated 2023-12-18

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CONTINUUM HEALTHCARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.4+1.6 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
ARLINGTON SNF MEMBER LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
BRUCKSTEIN, DANIELIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
ARLINGTON SNF REALTY LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
LITMAN, WARRENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2024
DORN, CHERYLIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/01/2023
MANDELBAUM, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/01/2023
CONTINUUM HEALTHCARE I INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/18/2025
PINA, KIMBERLYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
SINGH, PARMINDERIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
EISENBERG, ANDREWIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/30/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.

3 organizational owners 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.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$3.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-28.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$582K
Related-party expense14% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 33%Medicare 9%Other / private 58%

This home reported $582K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$359per resident / day
operating cost
$10,916per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$279per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OH

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365887. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next