St Mary Of The Woods
35755 Detroit Road, Avon, OH 44011 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (440) 937-6869 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 held steady at 5 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 30.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.3% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.7% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.4% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
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.
67.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 369 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.5% 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 187 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 0.80 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 67.8%CMS range 63.5–73.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 9.6–15.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 45.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 47.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 37.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 99.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | 98.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 95.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 4.5–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 43.6 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.37 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.82 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.60 to 0.79 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician orders when administering Resident #26's and Resident #44's respiratory aerosol treatments. This affected two residents (#26 and #44) out of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 43. Findings include:1. A review of Resident #44's clinical record revealed an admission date of 02/18/26 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, high blood pressure and cholesterol, atherosclerotic heart disease, esophagitis, peripheral vascular disease, stage IV chronic kidney disease, hyperparathyroidism secondary to renal origin, radiculopathy (spinal nerve compression), cataract, malaise, pupillary abnormality, and dysphagia (trouble swallowing). Resident #44 was discharged from the facility to her private residence on 02/25/26.A review of Resident #44's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #44 was alert…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 32 out of 36 residents who ate meals in the facility's kitchen. Four residents (Residents #1, #4, #10 and #24) received enteral nutrition and did not receive meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 36. Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen on 08/25/25 from 10:27 A.M. through 10:50 A.M. revealed the wall behind the grill and stove had grease built-up with food spattered, the deep [NAME] shield on the side of the deep [NAME] had half inch thick grease built up. The hood screens above the grill and stove had heavy grease buildup and the stove had burnt food and flood splatter all over it. The shelf under the steam table had grease buildup and food particles, also, the nine casserole dishes on the shelf were dirty with dried food. The reach-in cooler floor was wet with food particles on the floor and water was dripping from…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-28 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the resident personal privacy and confidentiality of medical records was maintained. This affected one resident (#63) of two residents reviewed for medical record release. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Interview with Resident #58's Family Member (FM) on 08/27/25 at 1:32 P.M. revealed she received Resident #58's medical records as requested from the facility, however; it also included another Resident's (#63) personal information, date of birth , insurance, diagnoses, and complete care plan. Review of medical record package sent to Resident #58's FM by facility verified Resident #63's private information and medical information were included in the packet for Resident #58. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/27/25 at 1:15 P.M. verified the medical record requested for Resident #58 also contained Resident #63's personal private and clinical information sent from the facility. The DON also informed Resident #63's family of the breech in confidentiality…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice and facility policy. This affected one resident (#58) of three residents reviewed for oxygen administration. The facility census was 36.Review of medical record for Resident #58 revealed an admission date of 04/01/25 with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, Parkinson's disease, heart failure with ejection fraction of 42%, dysphagia, history of falls, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cognitive deficits.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #58 dated 04/04/25 revealed the resident had cognitive decline as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11. The resident was assessed to require some assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) but maximum assistance with hygiene/toileting needs related to shortness of breath with minimal exertion. Resident also required continuous oxygen per nasal cannula at two to three liters per…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was stabilized and maintained in a manner to prevent urinary tract infection (UTI). This affected one resident (#17) out of three residents reviewed for an indwelling urinary catheter. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 04/25/22 with diagnoses including type II diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and calculus of kidney. Review of Resident #17's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/01/22, revealed Resident #17 was cognitively intact. Resident #17 required the extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and transfers. Resident #17 had an indwelling catheter for urine and was always continent of bowel. Review of the plan of care, dated 04/26/22, revealed the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter due to urinary retention. Interventions included positioning catheter bag below level of bladder, manipulating tubing…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview,record review, and review of facilities policy, the facility failed to notify and obtain physician orders for the use of oxygen for one resident (Resident #14) of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Record review for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 04/21/22. Diagnoses include unspecified fracture of shaft of right fibula, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, mild cognitive impairment and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #14 dated 06/02/22 revealed resident had moderately impaired cognition and required extensive assistance for bed mobility transfers and mobility. Record review of the progress note dated 06/19/22 at 10:29 A.M. completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #906 revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) was toileting (Resident #14) and while washing (Resident #14) hands with the STNA, (Resident #14) knees felt weak and was lowered to ground. STNA called for the nurse, and nurse assessed…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a drainage bag for an indwelling urinary catheter in a manner to ensure the dignity of one (#285) out of three residents reviewed for personal privacy. The census was 48. Findings include: Review of Resident #285's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included urinary tract infection, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, sepsis, and chronic kidney disease. Observation of Resident #285 on 05/28/19 at 8:50 A.M. and 3:43 P.M., on 05/29/19 at 10:20 A.M., 11:50 A.M.,1:09 P.M., and 2:23 P.M., and on 05/30/19 at 8:50 A.M. revealed the resident was in his room lying in bed. Resident #285's catheter bag was attached to the bed frame facing the open door and without a cover. Interview on 5/30/19 at 8:50 A.M., with the Director of Nursing verified the observation of Resident #285's catheter bag being in view of the hallway and not covered.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-30 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop an initial baseline plan of care for one (#288) of 12 residents reviewed for initial baseline plans of care. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Review of Resident #288's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction due to thrombosis of left anterior cerebral artery, Antiphospholipid Syndrome (a disorder in which the immune system mistakenly attacks normal proteins in the blood. It causes blood clots, can cause organ damage and death), epilepsy, thrombocytopenia, chronic kidney disease, stage 3, bipolar disorder, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. The record contained no evidence Resident #288 had an Initial Baseline Plan of Care developed until 05/29/19. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/29/19 at 10:20 A.M. verified she could not find any documented evidence the facility developed a baseline plan of care for Resident #288.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, resident interview, family interview, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living of bathing, hygiene, and opening food packets for one (#291) of 12 residents reviewed for showers. The facility identified 48 residents who required staff assistance or were dependent for bathing and 26 residents who required assistance or were dependent for eating. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Review of Resident # 291 medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included congestive heart failure, pneumonitis, ischemic cardiomyopathy, chronic stage 4 kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident # 291's plan of care, dated 05/22/19, revealed the resident had limited ability to perform his activities of daily living, including bathing, hygiene, and eating. The goal was for the resident to be well-groomed and dressed appropriately with proper hygiene maintained.…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-30 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management 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, staff interview, resident interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pain medication were available and administered timely for one (#187) of two residents reviewed for pain. The facility identified 27 residents who required pain management. The facility census was 48 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #187 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included status post bilateral knee replacement surgery, critical illness polyneuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, osteoarthritis, obesity and depression. Review of the baseline care plan included improving pain and ambulation. Review of the nurses' note dated 05/25/19 at 2:40 P.M. revealed Resident #187 arrived to the facility status post bilateral knee replacement surgery and was three days post-operation. Review of the May 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed upon admission [DATE] Resident #187 was prescribed Lyrica (for nerve and muscle…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 record review, observation, staff interview, visitor interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure information signage was properly posted on the door of a room with contact isolation and failed to ensure visitors were educated on the need for precautions when visiting one (#285) three residents on contact isolation precautions. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Review of Resident #285 medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included urinary tract infection, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, sepsis, chronic kidney disease, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Resident #285 was on contact isolation for clostridium difficile (C-Diff). Review of Resident #285's Initial Base Line Plan of Care dated 05/20/19, revealed the resident was on isolation for clostridium difficile, (C-Diff). Interventions included gown, gloves and handwashing. Observation of Resident #285 on 05/28/19 at…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SAINT THERESE SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 4 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 3 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAINT THERESE COMMUNITIES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 12/01/2024 |
| SAINT THERESE | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| ABBOTT, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| GILLESPIE, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| HERB, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| HOFFMANN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| HORSTMANN, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| KRENN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| MCCLUSKEY, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| MCCROSSAN, JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| MEADS, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| PARMAR, MONA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| TAFFE, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| WORNSON, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| SHELANGOSKI, CAL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| SAINT THERESE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| EREN, ITRI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| HELLER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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.
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
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Ohio Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 366342. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-28, 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.