Brookhaven Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
One Country Lane, Brookville, OH 45309 · For profit - Individual · 99 certified beds · (937) 833-2133 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.6% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.3% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.0% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.1% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.1% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.5% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.4% | 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.
62.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 145 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.3% 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 65 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 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 62.1%CMS range 55.5–68.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 7.0–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 72.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 64.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 63.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.6–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 93.9 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 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 3.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.09 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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 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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 medical record review, staff, resident and family interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were scheduled and conducted quarterly. This affected four (#36, #37, #61 and #85) out of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 84. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #36 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnosis including but not limited to cerebral atherosclerosis, stage four kidney disease, hypertension. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set for Resident #36 dated 12/29/25 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #36 was independent for eating, supervision for toileting, transfers and bed mobility. Resident #36 was coded with application of ointments and medication other than to feet. Review of the MDS assessment schedule for Resident #36 revealed quarterly assessments were completed on 10/24/24, 01/21/25, 03/10/25, 05/19/25, 08/13/25, 11/11/25 and an annual on 12/29/25. Review of the plan of care for Resident #36 dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-09 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, observations, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure activities were provided and documented in the medical record for evening hours. This affected three (#61, #43, #85) of three residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 84. Findings include 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to Alzheimer's' disease, dementia and psychotic disturbances. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #61 dated 01/27/26 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #61 was independent for eating. Resident #61 was dependent on staff for toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Review of the plan of care for Resident #61 dated 06/28/24 without revision revealed resident's interest included reading magazines, looking at picture books, being outdoors caring for flowers and televisions game shows. Interventions included activities that do not involve overly…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to monitor and document residents' bowel movements. Additionally, the facility failed to implement their bowel protocol when a resident did not have a bowel movement. This affected one (#93) of three resident reviewed for bowel protocol procedure. The facility census was 84. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #93 revealed and admission on [DATE] and a discharge date to the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to type one diabetes, epilepsy, history of myocardial infarction, and neurocognitive disorder with Lewy body (progressive cognitive decline) dementia. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #93 was coded with rejection of care one to three days during the assessment period. Resident #93 required supervision for eating, moderate assistance for bed mobility. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-09 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure foot care was routinely provided for a diabetic resident. This affected one (#85) of three residents reviewed for foot care. The facility census was 84. Findings included: Medical record review for Resident #85 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to acute and chronic heart failure, type two diabetes and vascular dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #85 was not coded with behaviors or rejection of care. Resident #85 required set up assistance for eating and moderate assistance for toileting bed mobility and transfers. Review of the plan of care for Resident #85 dated 06/21/24 revealed resident had diabetes mellitus and was insulin dependent. Interventions include blood glucose monitoring as ordered, diet as ordered, administer medication as ordered, check all of body for breaks in skin and treat…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-09 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate urinary catheter care was provided. This affected one (#34) of three residents reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 84. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #34 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #34 revealed an intact cognition. Resident #34 required set up assistance from staff for eating and dependent on staff for toileting, transfers and bed mobility. Resident #34 was coded for urinary catheter use. Review of the plan of care for Resident #34 revealed resident had a indwelling catheter due to bladder neuromuscular dysfunction. Interventions include catheter care every shift, changing catheter bag as needed and changing catheter per physicians' orders. Observation on 03/03/26 at 4:17 P.M. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at bedside and unsupervised. This affected two (#36 and #37) out of three residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 84. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #36 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnosis including but not limited to cerebral atherosclerosis, stage four kidney disease, hypertension. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #36 dated 12/29/25 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #36 was independent for eating, supervision for toileting, transfers and bed mobility. Resident #36 was coded with application of ointments and medication other than to feet. Review of the plan of care for Resident #36 dated 08/23/24 and revised on 08/30/24 revealed resident at risk for skin breakdown or have a known area of skin breakdown. Interventions include administering treatments/medications as ordered, offloading…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions as required. This affected one (#34) out of three resident reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 84. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #34 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to osteomyelitis of sacral vertebra (spine), peripheral vascular disease and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #34 revealed an intact cognition. Resident #34 required set up assistance from staff for eating and was dependent on staff for toileting, transfers and bed mobility. Resident #34 was coded for urinary catheter use. Resident #34 was coded as receiving applications of ointment and medications to areas other than the feet during the assessment period. Review of the plan of care for Resident #34 dated 11/18/24 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen area. This had the potential to affect 91 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Resident #13, #39 and #74 as receiving no food and drink from the kitchen. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Observation on 11/18/24 at 8:58 A.M. and 11/20/24 at 11:19 A.M. revealed a tacky substance on the hoses and a dark substance on the nozzles that connect to juice boxes. Interview on 11/20/24 at 11:19 A.M. with Dietary Director #172 confirmed a tacky substance on the hoses and the presence of a dark substance on the nozzles that connect to the juice boxes. Interview on 11/20/24 at 11:19 A.M. with Corporate Dietician #135 confirmed a tacky substance on the hoses and the presence of a dark substance on the nozzles that connect to the juice boxes. Record review of document titled, Monthly Kitchen Deep Clean, not dated, revealed Dietary and Maintenance will work in combination on a pre-scheduled evening to clean equipment.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely address concerns with a resident's feeding tube. This affected one (#39) of two residents reviewed for feeding tubes. The census was 94. Findings include: Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/23/24. Diagnoses listed included abnormal weight loss, Parkinson's disease, bipolar disorder, dementia, and dysphagia. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had severe cognitive impairment, had a feeding tube, and was receiving Hospice services. Review of nursing notes revealed on 11/02/24 at 9:08 P.M. Resident #39's feeding tube was clogged. After unclogging the feeding tube it was noticed that the feeding tube was dark almost black in color and had a foul odor. Feeding tube was flushed repeatedly and a new dressing place. A note was left for physician in the physician communication book. On 11/08/24 at 5:56 A.M., Resident #39's feeding…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer medications per physician orders. This affected one (Resident #57) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 06/26/24 with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of right kidney, anemia in chronic kidney disease, and unspecified atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact, was independent with eating, required set-up assistance with oral hygiene, required supervision with wheelchair mobility, required partial assistance with bed mobility, and required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing, and dressing. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #57 for November 2024 revealed Potassium Chloride ER Capsule Extended Release (Potassium Chloride) 20 mEq was ordered, but 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for two residents. This affected two (Residents #75 and #138) of four reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the Medical Record for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 10/02/24 with diagnoses of Parkinsonism, dementia, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of Resident #75's medical record revealed no documentation for EBP. Observation on 11/18/24 at 3:30 P.M. of Resident #75 revealed the resident had a suprapubic catheter. Observation revealed there were no gowns or gloves available, and there was no sign to advise staff resident was in EBP. Observation on 11/21/24 at 3:00 P.M. revealed Resident #75 with suprapubic catheter to abdomen, with no EBP in place. 2. Review of the Medical Record for Resident #138 revealed an admission date of 10/26/24 with diagnoses of acute kidney failure, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of Resident #138's medical record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-08 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's emergency contact was notified of a fall and a change in condition. This affected one (Resident #3) of three reviewed for notification of changes. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of Resident #3's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 01/24/24. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, vascular dementia, heart failure, and pleural effusion. Resident #3 was transferred to a local hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 10. Review of the progress notes dated 04/06/24 at 3:46 P.M. revealed Resident #3 was found by an State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) sitting upright on the floor next to his bed with his wheelchair next to him. The wheelchair was locked 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-09-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to store and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This had the potential to affect 78 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 08/30/21 at 08:28 A.M. revealed a tray of chocolate pudding and vanilla pudding dated 08/23/21. Seven gallons of drinks marked tea, prune juice, and lemonade were not dated. The next cooler contained eight glasses of poured dinks. The drinks were not labeled or dated. Review of the facility food temperature log revealed on 08/02/21, 08/19/21, and 08/20/21 the facility did not record any food temperatures for the meals served on that day. On 08/03/21, 08/04/21, 08/05/21, 08/08/21, 08/09/21, 08/10/21, 08/11/21, 08/12/21, and 08/13/21, the facility did not record any food temperatures of the evening meal. During interview on 08/30/21 at the time of the observations, Registered Dietitian (RD) #500 during the initial tour of the kitchen confirmed the pudding were labeled and dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-02 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment as ordered. This affected one (Resident #12) of two residents reviewed for use of adaptive equipment. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 11/30/01. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of one staff for eating. Review of the care plan dated 03/10/21 revealed the resident required a divided plate to aid in self-feeding. Review of the nutrition services progress note dated 03/10/21 revealed the resident was able to feed herself at times and a divided plate would be provided with meals. Review of the nutrition services progress note dated 08/26/21…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to UNITED CHURCH HOMES — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED CHURCH HOMES, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 12/27/2006 |
| HOWETT, BRYAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 05/29/2017 |
| JACKSON, SHIRLEY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 09/19/2016 |
| SMITH, CHRISTY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/10/2022 |
| MILLER, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| NELSON, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| PRUNIER, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| HCF MANAGEMENT, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| UNVERFERTH, CHAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
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
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.
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 365422. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, 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.