Woods On French Creek Nursing & Rehab Center The

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

50.5% 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 125 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 86.1% 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 79 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 74 beds and averages 69.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.07 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.15 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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

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 3 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.

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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-11-06 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRCTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY Based on record review, staff interview, resident interview, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of the hospital documentation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report a fall, failed to complete a timely and thorough resident assessment, and failed to ensure timely care and treatment after a fall. This resulted in Actual harm on 10/12/25 at 12:00 A.M. when Resident #52 fell out of bed and was assisted back into bed by staff without a thorough assessment. On 10/13/25 at 9:15 A.M., Resident #52 screamed out in pain with care, was thoroughly assessed, complained of bilateral leg pain, had x-rays completed, required EMS transportation to the hospital, and was diagnosed with bilateral femur fractures requiring surgical intervention on 10/14/25. The facility census was 68. Review of Resident #52's medical record revealed an admission date 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Actual harm · G2025-03-27 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, review of x-ray images, review of orthopedic records, review of therapy notes, review of physician notes, and review of facility corrective action, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with transfers were safely transported in their wheelchair to prevent injury. Actual harm occurred to Resident #10 when a dental provider staff member was transporting the resident in his wheelchair and pushed the resident's right foot into a door frame which resulted in excruciating pain and a subsequent distal posterior tibial fracture to the right foot. Resident #10 required orthopedic follow-up appointments, was required to wear a protective boot, and was non-weight bearing to the right foot until the fracture healed. This deficient practice affected one (#10) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  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 record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed and updated specifically to the individualized needs of the resident. This affected two residents (Resident #9 and #79) out of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 67.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 01/27/26. Review of the admission pressure injury condition report dated 12/16/25 revealed an unstageable dark purple/red area on Resident #79's sacrum. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #79 was admitted with an unstageable pressure ulcer. Review of the non-pressure wound condition report dated 01/26/26 identified Resident #79 had two open wounds to the right mid-thigh, one measuring 1.2 centimeters (cm) length, 0.5 cm width and 0.5 cm depth, and the other measured 0.7 cm length, 0.5 cm width and 0.5 cm length. Review of 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · 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 observation, resident interview, resident representative interview, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to implement and assess for appropriate interventions for a resident at risk for weight loss. This affected one (#2) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 11/15/19. Diagnoses included dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertensive heart disease, chronic pain syndrome, and anemia. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was independent with set up for eating and had no significant weight changes. Review of a plan of care dated 10/06/22 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for alteration in nutrition status related to dementia, use of diuretics, decreased mobility, advanced age, and overall decline. Interventions included assistance with meals as needed, two handled cup with lid and straw for drinks, encourage…

  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 · D2023-08-17 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of a facility policy, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered. There were three medication errors observed out of 27 opportunities for a medication error rate of 11.1 percent (%). This affected two (#46 and #14) of four residents observed for medication administration. The census was 69. Findings include: 1. Observation of medication administration by Registered Nurse (RN) #878 for Resident #46 on 08/16/23 at 8:21 A.M. revealed one of the medications administered was a stool softener Senna 8.6 milligrams (mg) by mouth. RN #878 did not administer Resident #46 a Senna-docusate sodium combination pill during the procedure. Review of Resident #46's medical record, following administration of medication on 08/16/23, revealed there was no active order for Senna 8.6 mg. There was an active order dated 03/10/23 for a Senna-docusate sodium combination pill with a dosage of 8.6-50 mg to be given twice daily for constipation at 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. Interview with RN #878 on 08/16/23 at 9:44 A.M. verified…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  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, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were maintained in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#39) of one residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 02/28/23. Diagnoses included unilateral primary osteoarthritis of the right hip, unspecified pulmonary hypertension, and primary generalized arthritis. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time and was extensive assist for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of Resident #23's August 2023 monthly physician orders revealed orders for the diuretic torsemide oral tablet 20 milligrams (mg), the blood pressure medication hydralazine oral tablet 50 mg, the antiemetic medication ondansetron oral tablet four (4) mg, the supplement…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-17 · tag F0810 — isolated
  Provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
  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, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a meal ticket, the facility failed to provide adaptive eating utensils as ordered and care planned. This affected one (#2) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 11/15/19. Diagnoses included dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertensive heart disease, chronic pain syndrome, and anemia. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was independent with set up for eating. Review of a plan of care dated 10/06/22 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for alteration in nutrition status related to dementia, use of diuretics, decreased mobility, advanced age, and overall decline. Interventions included assistance with meals as needed, two handled cup with lid and straw for drinks, encourage the resident to dine in the dining room, offer meal substitutes when foods…

  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 · Dcited before2020-02-20 · 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 observation, medical record review and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to accommodate residents needs by ensuring call lights were within reach and accessible for Resident #25, #58 and #273. This affected three (#25, #58 and #273) of 48 residents reviewed for call light placement. Facility census was 68. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #273 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to fracture of lower end of left radius, unsteadiness on feet, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #273 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of activities of daily living. Review of the care plan falls dated 02/12/20 revealed that call light should be within reach. Observation of Resident #273 on 02/18/20 at 9:36 A.M. revealed Resident #273 was sitting in a recliner with her legs elevated. When this surveyor asked Resident #273 if…

  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 · 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, observation, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident nail care was provided. This affected one (#25) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #25 had an admission date of 06/19/19. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type two, dementia and chronic pain. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 had intact cognition. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed the resident required limited assistance from one staff member for personal hygiene. Review of the nurses progress notes dated 01/01/20 through 02/19/20 revealed no documentation the resident had refused nail care. Observation on 02/18/20 at 9:56 A.M. revealed Resident #25's fingernails were long with dark debris underneath the nails. Interview on 02/18/20 at 9:56 A.M. with 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 · D2020-02-20 · tag F0685 — isolated
  Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 medical record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide services to maintain a resident's hearing. This affected one (#37 out of 19 residents sampled for hearing. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #37's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 12/26/17. Resident #37 had a medical diagnosis including: Lumbago with sciatica, scoliosis and major depression. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #37 was completely cognitively intact, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Review of an Audiology visit 09/05/19 identified Resident #37 was alert and oriented time three (person, place and time) was evaluated with an otoscope (device to view ear canal) which identified impacted cerumen (wax) in both ears. The visit report identified hearing tests were not preformed this visit, due to wax in the left ear. Right ear was identified partially blocked. The notes…

  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 · D2020-02-20 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
  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, medical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to honor resident food preferences. This affected two (#11 and #60) of 19 sampled residents. The facility census was 68. Finding include 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #11 had an admission dated of 11/09/18. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type two, Parkinson's disease, anxiety and depressive disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Review of an undated diet history and food preference sheet revealed the resident preferred cold cereal, cranberry juice and coffee. Further review revealed the resident disliked chicken breasts, chicken legs, corn, and carrots. Review of the resident's dietary meal ticket dated 02/20/20 revealed all the resident's disliked foods were not included on the dietary meal ticket. The meal ticket indicated the resident disliked bananas, potatoes and orange juice. Observation…

  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 · Dcited before2020-02-20 · tag F0810 — isolated
  Provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
  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, medical record review and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with eating equipment to maintain independence with eating. This affected one (#30) out of four residents reviewed for maintaining independence with eating. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #30's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred 09/25/15, following a stroked. Resident #30 had additional medical diagnosis including kidney disease, anxiety, dementia and high blood pressure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified Resident #30 was not interviewable. Review of Resident #30's nutritional assessment dated [DATE] identified he utilizes a sip cup, but there was no documentation regarding any need for bowls to maintain independence. Resident #30 requires a pureed diet with honey thick liquids. The assessment also identified Resident #30 required being fed by staff and there was no evidence…

  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

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

Fines & penalties

$26,685 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $26,685 — penalty dated 2025-11-06

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 FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS — 64 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

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 $598K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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