The Pavilion at Canal Fulton for Nursing and Rehab

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.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 38.2 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 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 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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.

17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2025-06-18 · tag F0868 — widespread
  Have the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on review of facility documentation and interview, the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to meet at least quarterly. This had the potential to affect all 44 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility QAPI committee sign in sheets provided by the facility revealed a single sign-in sheet for May 2025. Interview on 06/17/25 at 4:18 P.M. with the Administrator verified the QAPI committee sign-in sheet dated May 2025 was the only sign in sheet available. No additional information was provided to support additional QAPI meetings were held.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-06-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide 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 observation, interview, record review, policy review, and CMS memorandum QSO-24-08-NH review, the facility failed to provide care to Residents #7, #29, and #46 in a manner to prevent the potential spread of infection. This affected Residents #7, #29 and #46 and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 05/06/14. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 had severe cognitive impairment, required extensive to total dependence for all activities of daily living, and was always incontinent of urine and bowel. Review of the care plan for Resident #7 dated 03/18/25 revealed the resident had pressure ulcers related to impaired mobility. Interventions included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness, and 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-06-18 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate related to hospice services and use of tobacco. This affected seven residents (Residents #3, #12, #16, #17, #28, #42, and #43) of sixteen residents reviewed for Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment accuracy. Facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and started on hospice services on 03/12/25. Diagnoses included dementia, gastro esophageal reflux disease (GERD), insomnia, anxiety, chronic pain, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the assessment did not indicate the provision of Hospice Services. 2. Medical record review revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and started on hospice services on 02/04/25. Diagnoses included dementia, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, GERD, diabetes, major depressive disorder, and tachycardia. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE]…

  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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure call lights were within resident reach. This affected two (#7 and #23) of two residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 05/06/14. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 had severe cognitive impairment. required extensive to dependence for all activities of daily living, and was always incontinent of urine and bowel. Review of the care plan dated 03/18/25 revealed Resident #7 had self-care deficits for activities of daily living related to her diagnoses. Interventions included to provide bed mobility of two persons and encourage Resident #7 to use call light when assistance was needed. Observation on 06/16/25 at 9:59 A.M. revealed Resident #7 lying in bed hollering 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure advanced directives had the appropriate signatures. This affected one resident (#8) of 17 residents (#15, #9, #46, #37, #28, #5, #40, #11, #16, #4, #1, #42, #22, #7, #12, #8, and #3) whose advanced directives were reviewed. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 05/16/25. Diagnoses included urinary tract infection, dementia, and prostate cancer. Review of Resident #8's physician orders for June 2025 revealed an active order for Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care- Arrest (DNRCC-A) dated 05/16/25. Review of Resident #8's DNRCC-A form dated 05/16/25 revealed on the line for required signature of physician, APRN [advance practiced registered nurse], or PA [physician assistant] were the signatures of Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #102 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134. Written on the line required for APRN or PA: name of the supervising physician (PA) or collaborating physician (APRN) for this patient and the physician's HNPI…

  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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  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 review of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letters and staff interview, the facility failed to inform residents of the name and phone number of the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO). This affected one resident of one resident reviewed for liability notices (Resident #2). The census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter, signed by the resident/resident representative on 12/18/24, revealed services ended on 12/20/24. The letter did not provide the necessary QIO information to request a timely appeal regarding the ending of skilled services and therapies. Interview on 06/16/25 at 3:30 P.M. with Social Service Coordinator #113 confirmed the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter to Resident #2 did not provide the information needed for the appeal process. Interview on 06/16/25 at 3:37 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage…

  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 · D2025-06-18 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to complete Significant Change in Minimum Data Set (MDS) status assessments within 14 days after hospice admission date. This affected three residents (#16, #17 and #42) of nine reviewed for hospice services. Facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE] and started hospice services on 01/09/25. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Alzheimer's disease, chronic respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, dementia, anxiety, malnutrition, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Review of Resident #16's assessments revealed there was no Significant Change assessment completed within 14 days of Resident #16's hospice admission. 2. Medical record review revealed Resident #17 was admitted on [DATE] and started hospice services on 05/11/25. Diagnoses included diabetes, dementia, anxiety, major depressive disorder, gastro esophageal reflux disease (GERD), atrial…

  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 · D2025-06-18 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan for smoking for Resident #28. This affected one resident (#28) of one resident reviewed for smoking. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 03/13/25. Diagnoses included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and nicotine dependence. Review of the smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 smoked and required supervision. Review of the smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 did not require supervision or any adaptive equipment for smoking. Review of Resident #28's plan of care revealed the care plan did not address smoking. Interview on 06/17/25 at 10:54 A.M. with Resident #28 revealed she smoked at the facility and had been a smoker for 50 years. Interview on 06/17/25 at 12:57 P.M. with MDS Nurse #105 revealed she was not aware Resident #28 was a smoker when she completed the MDS…

  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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#40) of five residents (#5, #40, #11, #3, and #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/25/23. Diagnoses included dementia, depression, Alzheimer's disease, and hallucinations. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 had impaired cognition. Review of the pharmacy recommendation dated 03/13/25 revealed Resident #40 had a medication order for fluticasone nasal spray two spray each nostril (EN) everyday (QD) which started 11/28/23. The recommendation indicated in an effort to ensure the lowest most effective does was administered please consider discontinuing fluticasone nasal spray or change the fluticasone nasal spray to one spray EN QD as needed (prn) for rhinitis. A handwritten…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-07-31 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
  Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on facility self-reported incident review, medical record review, staff interview, policy review and facility investigation, the facility failed to ensure staff did not misappropriate resident narcotic medication. This affected one (Resident #44) of one residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. The facility census was 46 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) #245379 dated 03/18/24 revealed Resident #44's Percocet (a pain medication) tablets were reported missing. Further review of the SRI revealed Percocet tablets were reported missing when staff notified the pharmacy of the need for a refill and the pharmacy indicated there should be a two-week supply left. SRI investigation completed on 03/25/24 revealed the facility was unable to verify or determine if misappropriation of medication occurred. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 09/25/23 with diagnoses…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · 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 THE PAVILION GROUP — 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 19 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

7 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.

About 70% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $918K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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