O'neill Healthcare Bay Village

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.

36.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 143 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 77.3% 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 66 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 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 138 beds and averages 112.3 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.34 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.80 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

28 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper food storage and sanitation of the food preparation and storage area. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 117.Findings include: Observations during the initial kitchen tour on 01/13/26 at 8:30 A.M. with the Dietary Manager (DM) #586 revealed the following: Observation of the dry storage area, four containers of lemon-flavored thickened water were identified with an expiration date of 10/07/24. Thirteen packages of submarine rolls were observed in storage labeled with a best-by date of 01/10/26. Additionally, three yellow onions were observed with visible root growth, stored in a container in which multiple fruit flies were actively present. The floor of the dry storage area was observed to be visibly soiled, with scattered trash including clear plastic wrap, black dirt, a dark liquid-like substance, and areas of sticky residue. The main cooler revealed one opened to air and undated pack of hot dogs, one undated bowl of unidentified…

  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 · F2026-01-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespread
  Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, work orders, facility policy review and facility documents review, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program in the kitchen area and failed to ensure garbage receptacles had lids. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 117.Findings include:Observation of the main kitchen on 01/13/26 at 8:30 A.M. with the Dietary Manager (DM) #586 revealed several fruit flies were near the main freezer and juice dispenser. Three garbage receptacles in the kitchen had visible trash with no lids. Fruit flies were observed in the trash and in the yellow onion storage container. Interview on 01/13/26 with DM #586 at the time of the observation verified the findings.Review of work orders from the facilities contracted pest control company revealed the main kitchen was treated for fruit flies and general pests on 08/14/25, inspected for ants and fruit flies on 09/11/25, spot treated for fruit flies on 10/09/25, inspected for fruit flies on 11/13/25, spot treated for fruit flies 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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-21 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, family interview, resident interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were served at a palatable temperature and were visually pleasing. This affected sixteen (Residents #1, #4, #24, #25, #26, #28, #31, #48, #59, #65, #71, #72, #85, #98, #116, and #137) of 18 residents reviewed for dietary services. The facility census was 117. Findings include: 1. Interview with a family member of Resident #48 on 01/12/26 at 10:30 A.M. revealed multiple concerns related to food quality and temperature.2. Interview with Resident #137 on 01/12/26 at 10:55 A.M. revealed the food at the facility is always cold and Resident #137 has to ask the facility's Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) to warm up the food, which they do reluctantly.3. Interview with Resident #116 on 01/12/26 at 11:16 A.M. revealed the food had gone downhill.4. Interview with Resident #1 on 01/12/26 at 12:37 P.M. revealed the food at the facility is gross.5. Observation of the test tray for the breakfast meal on 01/13/26 at 8:00 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #586 revealed the…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-01-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected 15 Residents (#4, #5, #10, #21, #26, #28, #32, #33, #40, #48, #50, #71, #78, #91, and #94) of 117 residents observed during the survey and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 117.Findings include:Observation during environmental rounds on 01/15/2026 at 9:42 A.M. with the Director of Ancillary Services (DAS) #645 revealed the following that was verified at the time of discovery:- Resident #4's room had loose flooring under the bottom of the bed legs.- Resident #5's bottom bed sheet had a small hole and two small yellow stains at the end of the bed. There was a strong odor of urine in the room, but there was no visible urine.- Resident #10's room had an air conditioner filter that had visible dirt and debris. There was wall damage behind the bed.- Resident #26's room had loose flooring under three of four bed legs, and a dislodged floor baseboard cover and exposed heating element.-…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and homelike environment. This affected two residents (#26 and #81) of 26 sampled residents. The facility census was 117. Findings include: Observation on 01/15/26 at 9:42 A.M. of Resident #26's room revealed a rolled towel which was placed at the base of the room window next to the bed. Cold air was felt from the base of the closed window. Interview on 01/15/26 at 10:05 A.M. with Resident #26 revealed that cold air comes through the window and is uncomfortable, and that is why the rolled towel is placed.Observation on 01/15/26 at 9:45 A.M. of Resident #81's room revealed a gap above the air conditioner unit below the window. Cold air was felt through the gap.Interview on 01/15/26 at 9:42 A.M. with Resident #81 revealed the resident stated he was cold in his room and was uncomfortable.Interview and environmental rounds on 01/15/26 at 2:25 P.M. with the Director of Ancillary Services (DAS) #645 confirmed the above findings.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Numbers 2642470,…

  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 · D2026-01-21 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) accurately captured all of the resident's current mental health and intellectual disability conditions. This affected one resident (#98) of one resident reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 117.Findings include: Resident #98 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified intellectual disabilities, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and Alzheimer's disease.Review of Resident #98's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #98 was moderately cognitively impaired and required hands-on assistance from one staff person to complete activities of daily living.Review of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility failed to accurately identify Resident #98's mental health and intellectual disability diagnoses. Specifically, review…

  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 · D2026-01-21 · 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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31 had an activities care plan including the resident's choices and preferences for activities. This finding affected one (Resident #31) of one resident reviewed for activities. The facility census was 117. Findings include:Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia, diabetes and muscle weakness.Review of Resident #31's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited intact cognition.Review of Resident #31's care plans did not reveal evidence of a care plan that was implemented to reflect the resident's choices or preferences for activities.Interview on 01/12/26 at 10:10 A.M. with Resident #31 revealed some activities were cancelled due to lack of resident participation.Interview on 01/20/26 at 10:04 A.M. with Activity Director (AD) #542 confirmed Resident #31's…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  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 and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were involved in their ongoing plan of care. This affected one resident (#116) of 26 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 117.Findings include: Resident #116 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness), hypertension (high blood pressure), osteoarthritis, major depressive disorder, vertigo, and anxiety disorder. Review of the electronic medical record for Resident #116 revealed the last social service assessment progress note was recorded on 10/31/23, and social service progress note on 05/01/24. There was no documentation in the electronic medical record of a care conference from 10/31/23 to 01/13/26. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #116 was cognitively intact and required set up to partial/moderate assistance for completing his…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · 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, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess a newly identified skin alteration to Resident #8's sacral/buttock area and ensure the resident's care plan for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment was timely revised. This affected one resident (#8) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 117.Findings include:Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] which included diagnoses of senile degeneration of brain, emphysema, heart block, emphysema, obstructive and reflux uropathy, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.Review of the admission Nursing Data Collection Tool dated 11/11/25 at 6:30 P.M. revealed Resident #8 had no pressure areas upon admission. The skin condition on admission revealed scattered bruising to the bilateral upper extremities, a right chest abrasion, a left groin abrasion, bruising and scabs to the right trochanter (hip), scabs to the right forearm, and a surgical incision to 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · 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, witness statements, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #121 was transferred appropriately using a Hoyer mechanical lift. This finding affected one (Resident #121) of two residents reviewed for transfers. The facility census was 117. Findings include:Review of Resident #121's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] and discharged on 09/05/25 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lumbago with sciatica right and left side and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #121's Mobility Care Plan revealed an intervention dated 11/30/23 to transfer the resident with the assistance of two staff members using a Hoyer mechanical lift and the medium purple sling. Review of Resident #121's physician orders revealed an order dated 03/01/24 for a Hoyer lift for all…

  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

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to O'NEILL HEALTHCARE — 6 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 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 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 $3.4M 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