Bowling Green Manor

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.

58.2% 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 117 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 80.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 36 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 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 11% 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 99 beds and averages 95.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% 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

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.

15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2025-02-18 · tag F0868 — widespread
  Have the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based of review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meeting sign in sheets, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the required personnel were in attendance at the quarterly QAA meetings and further failed to maintain documentation of personnel in attendance at all QAA meetings This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 93. Findings include: Review of the first quarter QAA meeting sign in sheet, dated 05/02/24, revealed no evidence the Medical Director (MD) was in attendance at the meeting. Further review of documentation for the second quarter QAA meeting, held in July 2024, and the third quarter QAA meeting, held in October 2024, revealed no evidence of who was in attendance at the meetings. Interview on 02/18/25 at 1:34 P.M. with the Administrator verified there was no signature, or other evidence of the MD's attendance, at the the first quarter 2024 QAA meeting and further confirmed there were no sign in sheets or other evidence for the second and third quarter QAA meetings to verify those…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-02-18 · 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, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident meals were palatable. This affected all residents, except 31(#6, #8, #10, #18, #22, #24, #25, #26, #35, #39, #40, #44, #49, #52, #58, #61, #65, #67, #71, #75, #77, #84, #90, #92, #95, #148, #152, #245, #246, #247, #248) residents the facility identified as not being served French fries. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure recipes for pureed diets were followed to maintain nutritive value. This affected four (#8, #39, #61 and #90) of four residents identified by the facility as receiving pureed meals. The facility census was 93. Findings include: 1. Interview on 02/10/25 at 8:15 P.M. with Resident #24 revealed the food at the facility was not good. Interview on 02/11/25 at 11:43 A.M. with Resident #52 revealed the only area of concern at the facility was the food, adding the vegetables were either under or overcooked and meals were not warm enough to be palatable. Interview on 02/11/25 at 12:33 P.M. with Resident #80 revealed her lunch meal was cold…

  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 · E2025-02-18 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, review of the pureed food recipe and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared to an appropriate consistency. This affected four (#8, #39, #61, and #90) of four residents identified by the facility as receiving pureed food. The facility census was 93. Findings include: Observation on 02/12/25 at 10:20 A.M. of pureed meal preparation revealed [NAME] #439 added hamburger patties and hot water to the puree blender. At 10:24 A.M., [NAME] #439 stopped the blender, took off the lid, and used her gloved fingers to test the texture of the pureed meat. Concurrent interview with [NAME] #439 revealed the expected texture of the meat should be a honey thick texture and she determined the meat was of an appropriate consistency. After further observation, it was determined the hamburger was not appropriately pureed and [NAME] #439 continued to blend. Interview on 02/12/25 at 10:27 A.M. with Dietetic Technician (DT) #592 revealed the hamburger meat seemed to be pureed to a pudding like texture and stated it was ready…

  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 · Ecited before2025-02-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was properly labeled and dated and further failed to remove items from stock when expired. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff performed adequate hand hygiene. This had the potential to affect all residents, except one (#248) resident identified by the facility as receiving no nutrition from the kitchen. Lastly, the facility failed to ensure meals were distributed in a manner that protected against contamination. This affected three (#32, #57, and #69) of 17 residents who received meal trays on the B Hall. The facility census was 93. Findings include: 1. Observations on 02/10/25 between 6:25 P.M. and 7:24 P.M. of the reach-in refrigerator, located in the main kitchen, revealed the following unlabeled food items: two clear gallon pitchers with orange liquid, two uncovered one-cup sized bowls filled with diced peaches and an unopened piping bag of whipped topping that did not have an expiration date. Additional observation of the walk-in refrigerator revealed…

  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 · D2025-02-18 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed accurately. This affected one (#73) of 19 residents reviewed for assessments. The facility census was 93. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #73 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included late onset Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, lumbosacral disc degeneration, abnormalities of gait and mobility, oropharyngeal dysphagia, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/15/25, revealed Resident #73 required a mechanically altered diet and did not take scheduled pain medication. Review of Resident #73's physician orders revealed an order dated 08/21/23 for Oxycodone with acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg), one pill by mouth twice daily for moderate pain. Further review revealed an order dated 10/10/23 for a regular texture and regular consistency diet. Interview on 02/18/25 at 8:30 A.M. with…

  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 · D2025-02-18 · 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

  Based on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were comprehensive and included care needs related to smoking for two (#38 and #88) residents and for one (#61) resident for edema care. This affected three residents (#38, #88 and #61) of 19 residents reviewed for comprehensive care planning. The facility census was 93. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/22/25. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive and nicotine dependence. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/28/25, revealed Resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed Resident #38 was dependent on staff for transfers and putting on footwear, required maximal assistance with parts of dressing, utilized a manual wheelchair for mobility and displayed verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others one to…

  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 · Dcited before2025-02-18 · 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

  Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility's bowel protocol, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for constipation had bowel interventions implemented as directed. This affected one (#64) of one resident reviewed for constipation. The facility census was 93. Findings include: Review of Resident #64's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/24/24. Diagnoses included dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, altered mental status, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, and prostate cancer. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/16/25, revealed Resident #64 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review revealed Resident #64 required touching assistance with toilet use, dressing and transfers and was always continent of bowel. Review of the care plan, revised 02/09/25, revealed Resident #64 was at risk for constipation. Interventions included administer medications and treatments as ordered, assess bowel sounds, 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-02-18 · 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

  Based on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility admission Agreement, the facility failed to maintain safe smoking practices. This affected two residents (#38 and #88) of two residents reviewed for smoking. The facility census was 93. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/22/25. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive, and nicotine dependence. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/28/25, revealed Resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed Resident #38 was dependent on staff for transfers and putting on footwear, required maximal assistance with parts of dressing, utilized a manual wheelchair for mobility, and displayed verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others one to three days during the review period. Review of the care plan, revised 02/11/25, revealed Resident #38 had supports and interventions for…

  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 · D2025-02-18 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility's skills competency for pain management document, the facility failed to ensure pain assessments were completed with the administration of narcotic pain medications. This affected one (#73) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 93. Findings include: Review of Resident #73's medical record revealed and admission date of 05/17/23. Diagnoses included late onset Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, lumbosacral disc degeneration, abnormalities of gait and mobility, oropharyngeal dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hyperlipidemia, long term current drug therapy, hypertension, hypothyroidism, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/15/25, revealed Resident #73 was cognitively impaired, used a manual wheelchair and was at risk for pressure ulcers. The assessment indicated Resident #73 did not take scheduled pain medication. Review of a physician order dated 08/21/23 revealed Resident #73 was…

  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 · D2022-09-29 · tag F0637 — isolated
  Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
  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 policy review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment after a significant change. This affected one (#78) of two residents reviewed for hospice services. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #78 revealed an admission date of 11/05/13 with medical diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and heart failure. Review of a physician order dated 08/26/22 revealed Resident #78 was admitted to hospice care on 08/26/22. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #78's cognition was not assessed and she required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, extensive assistance of one person for dressing and toileting, was totally dependent on one person for hygiene, and required supervision with one person assist for eating. Further review revealed she was under the care of hospice. Further medical…

  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

“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 HCF MANAGEMENT — 22 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 32 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

12 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 $469K 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