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

Pleasant View Health Care Center

401 Snyder Ave, Barberton, OH 44203 · For profit - Corporation · 121 certified beds · (330) 745-6028 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (330) 745-6028 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Aug 2025
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • 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
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its last standard health inspection was over 3 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 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
165 5th St SE · (330) 745-3080 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
374 Elson Ave · (330) 753-3034 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
290 George St · (330) 745-6817 · Call to confirm hours
Park
230 Elson Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
299 Frank Ave SE · (330) 753-7551

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 2 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 4 to 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.

Overall rating5★
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 increased11.2%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.2%6.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.2%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.5%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.3%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 injury1.3%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened11.2%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication31.2%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.8%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.7%21.4%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.9%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.9%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine86.2%75.6%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.2%24.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.4%12.9%12.0%typical

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.

53.9% 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 88 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
not reportedno hours filed
Therapy hours / resident / day

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 32 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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 SNF53.9%CMS range 43.5–66.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.0%CMS range 7.0–16.110.7%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 discharge50.0%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 discharge46.9%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 discharge50.0%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 identified92.5%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 worsened5.7%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 hospitalization7.8%CMS range 4.6–13.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.791.02Oct 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

0.34
RN hours/ resident / day
1.01
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.73
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.08
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.15
RN hoursweekends
33.7%
Total nursing turnover
30.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 121 beds and averages 110.5 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.19 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2023-06-29)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2020-02-27)

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.

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · E2026-04-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide 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 medical record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure oral care was provided daily as required for four residents (#81, #82, #100, and #101) of five residents reviewed for oral care. The facility census was 116.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #81 revealed an admission date of 04/27/18. Diagnoses included but were not limited to Alzheimer's dementia, vascular dementia with psychotic disturbance, and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition.Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #81 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 08 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of activities of daily living (ADLs) revealed the resident required maximum assistance for oral hygiene.Review of the care plan for Resident #81, which was last reviewed on 01/26/26, revealed she was dependent on staff assistance for oral hygiene.Review of the task called Denture care AM for the past…

    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 · D2025-08-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility witness statements, review of facility self-reported incidents, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State agency. This finding affected one (Resident #47) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Review of the incident witness statement between Residents #47 and #119 authored by the DON dated 08/10/25 revealed the facility received a call reporting Resident #119 was sitting on the roommate's bed having a conversation with him when Resident #47 reported that Resident #119 tried to kiss and grab his genitalia. Resident #47 was assisted out of bed and removed from the room and taken to a common area where he was placed in a recliner. The DON instructed staff to move Resident #47's to a new room with Resident #47's permission. Review of Resident #47's witness statement dated 08/10/25 authored by the DON revealed Resident #119 sat on the resident's bed and tried to kiss and…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · 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 record review and interview, the facility did not ensure Resident #10 was transferred safely to prevent falls per the physician order. This finding affected one (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for accident hazards. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including a non-displaced subtrachanteric fracture of the right femur (closed fracture with routine healing) dated 02/10/25 and a age-related current pathological fracture of the vertebrae with routine healing dated 11/02/23. Review of Resident #10's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited intact cognition, was dependent for toileting and bathing. Review of Resident #10's fall investigation form dated 11/24/24 at 3:55 P.M. revealed the resident was assisted to the toilet and the resident fell to the bathroom floor. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) and brother were notified of the incident. Review of Resident #10's…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-02-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured at all times. This had the potential to affect 26 (Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #8, Resident #11, Resident #12, Resident #17, Resident #26, Resident #27, Resident #29, Resident #33, Resident #35, Resident #37, Resident #46, Resident #47, Resident #54, Resident #59, Resident #63, Resident #67, Resident #68, Resident #70, Resident #76, Resident #78, Resident #84, Resident #89, Resident #95, Resident #99) of 26 residents who were cognitively impaired and independently mobile. Findings include: 1. Observation on 02/25/20 at 7:30 A.M. revealed a medication cart was unlocked on Side 1 in the facility. There were no staff in sight of the medication cart. Interview on 02/25/20 at 7:31 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 confirmed the medication cart was unlocked. 2. Observation on 02/26/20 at 11:43 A.M. revealed there was an unidentified loose pill in a medication cup on top of the medication cart near the Side 1 nurses station. There were no staff in sight 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-02-27 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #11, Resident #14, Resident #28, Resident #43, Resident #56, Resident #77, Resident #114 were were served the proper portion of their pureed lunch according to the menu. This affected seven (Resident #11 Resident #14, Resident #28, Resident #43, Resident #69, Resident #77, and Resident #114 ) of seven residents that were served pureed meals in the small dining room, with the potential to affect all ten residents (Resident #11 Resident #14, Resident#16, Resident #28, Resident #43, Resident #56, Resident #69, Resident #77, Resident #114, and Resident #115) on a pureed diet. Findings include: Review of the facility lunch menu for 02/26/20 revealed residents on a pureed diet should be served pureed meatloaf with gravy using a number six scoop (5 and 1/3 ounces), and the pureed scalloped potatoes and pureed green beans did not have a scoop size listed. Residents on a regular diet were to receive a half cup (4 ounces) of scalloped potatoes and a half cup of green beans. Review of the Portion Control…

    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 · D2020-02-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician when Resident #37 refused numerous doses of medication. This affected one resident (Resident #37) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral atherosclerosis, cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, diabetes, delusional disorder, hypertension, encephalopathy, major depressive disorder and mixed receptive expressive language disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] Resident #37 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the February 2020 medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #37 refused: five milligrams (mg) of Abilify (antipsychotic) and 75 mg Effexor XR (antidepressant) at lunch on 02/09/20 and 02/19/20, 40 mg 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-27 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were correct for three residents (Residents #29, #45, and #111) of 25 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings include: 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #29's medical record revealed a quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE]. The MDS revealed Resident #29 received the following medications in the previous seven days, one injection, six days of antipsychotics, seven days of antidepressants, seven days of anticoagulants, seven days of diuretics, and seven days of opioids. Review of Resident #29's December 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #29 received one injection, six days of antipsychotics, seven days of antidepressants, seven days of anticoagulants, three days of diuretics, and seven days of opioids during the reference period 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-27 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40's pressure ulcer interventions were in place at all times. This affected one (Resident #40) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including orthopedic aftercare, part of neck of left femur fracture, vascular dementia and muscle weakness. Resident #40's physician orders, dated 12/29/19, revealed he should have bilateral heel boots. Resident #40's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE], revealed his cognition was moderately impaired, required two person extensive assistance for bed mobility, and was totally dependent on two people for transfers. Observation on 02/24/20 at 10:37 A.M. revealed Resident #40 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room, with his feet resting on food pedals. Resident #40 had a visible dressing to his left foot, with socks on both feet. Review of Resident #40's Wound Evaluation note dated 02/18/20…

    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 · D2019-01-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #247 was treated with dignity and respect. The affected one resident (Resident #247) of two residents reviewed for dignified treatment in the facility. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #247 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart and lung disease, multiple fractures of the ribs which resulted from a fall prior to admission to the facility, spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal causing numbness, weakness or pain in the arms and/or legs) spondylosis (spinal arthritis) and macular degeneration (blurred or no vision). The resident was admitted for rehabilitation following a fall at home. Review of Resident #247's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated he needed extensive assistance of one staff member with bed mobility (how one moves to and from a lying position, turns side to side, and positions body while in bed). Interview with Resident #247 on…

    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 · D2019-01-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of Resident #72's and Resident #247's toileting programs was maintained in the resident's medical records. This affected two residents (Resident #72 and #247) of 24 residents whose records were reviewed for accuracy of documentation. Findings include: 1. Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, heart, cerebral vascular and lung disease, urinary incontinence and altered mental status. A review of Resident #72's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated frequent urinary incontinence with a toileting program initiated. A review of the restorative toileting program initiated on 08/30/18 indicated to check Resident #72 for incontinence and offer to assist to the bathroom at 9:00 A.M., 11:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. An review of the documentation dated 01/01/19 to 01/14/19 of the scheduled toileting program indicated inaccurate documentation 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
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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ELSNER, MARGARETIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/24/2003
MAJORKIEWICZ, LUCYIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/24/2003
MORRIS, EDWARDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/24/2003
MORRIS, JOSEPHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/24/2003
MORRIS, RICHARDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/20/2016
MORRIS, ROBERTIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/24/2003
MORRIS, TERESAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER14%since 04/23/2003

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$10.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-0.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$300K
Related-party expense3% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 3%Other / private 23%

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $300K 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

$274per resident / day
operating cost
$8,320per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$272per 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 365406. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-06-29, 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