Canfield Acres LLC DBA Windsor House At Canfield

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.

55.1% 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 184 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 37.8% 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 82 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 96 beds and averages 69.8 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are 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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure Resident #32 was treated with respect and dignity when in need of assistance by staff. This affected one resident (#32) of one resident reviewed for assistance with activity of daily living. The facility census was 68. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 03/05/25 with diagnoses including contracture of an unspecified joint, muscle wasting and atrophy, lack of coordination, hypertension, difficulty in walking, and muscle weakness. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #32 identified orders for a mechanical lift for all transfers with an effective date of 03/05/25.Review of the self-care plan of care, initiated 03/13/25, indicated Resident #32 was at-risk for a self-care deficit. Interventions included, but were not limited to, remind resident to use call light and ask for assistance before self-transferring (03/13/25), up to wheelchair as tolerated (03/13/25), and use assistive devices as indicated (03/13/25).…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure authorizations for resident funds were witnessed as required. This affected one resident (#37) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Facility census was 68.Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/16/24 and diagnoses including anemia, vitamin D deficiency, subclinical iodine-deficiency hypothyroidism, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and malignant neoplasm of rectum. Resident #37 was her own responsible party and per the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment on 12/29/25, Resident #37 was cognitively intact. Review of a choice of resident funds disposition form, signed electronically by Resident #37's brother on 02/19/24, revealed an area on the form for a witness signature which was left blank. Interview on 01/06/26 at 2:29 P.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #383 revealed the resident funds authorizations were electronically signed and she was not sure how the witnessing of the authorization worked with the electronic…

  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 · Dcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, interview, review of the facility's self-reported incidents (SRI) of abuse, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report to the state agency a resident to resident verbal abuse incident. This affected two residents (#29 and #59) of two reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 68. Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/20/24 with diagnoses including history of stroke, expressive language disorder, metabolic encephalopathy, anxiety disorder, and vascular dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/20/25, revealed Resident #29 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #29's progress note dated 11/18/25 at 5:15 P.M. revealed another resident thought Resident #29 was his sister. Review of Resident #29's progress notes for December 2025 revealed there was no documentation of any incidents occurring between Resident #29 and Resident #59. On 01/05/26 at 3:06 P.M., an interview was attempted with Resident #29, however, Resident #29 was not…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, facility self-reported incident (SRI) review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of physical abuse to the state agency. This affected two residents (Resident #32 and Resident #65) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 63. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 11/02/21. Diagnoses included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and exudative age-related macular degeneration of the right eye. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was moderately impaired cognitively with no behaviors or signs or symptoms of delirium and required supervision or touch assistance from staff for sit to stand, transfers, and walking ten feet. Interview on 10/11/24 at 5:56 A.M. with Resident #32 revealed there had been an incident where another resident (Resident #33),…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #61's hospice care plan and actual skin impairment care plan were in place and updated. This affected one resident (#61) out of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but was not limited to dementia unspecified, severe, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, kidney disease, urine retention, colon cancer, malnutrition. Resident #61 was admitted to hospice on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #61 was cognitively intact. The assessment noted he was at risk for pressure ulcers and had no pressure ulcers. Review of the care plan dated [DATE] revealed the care plan was not updated to include hospice admission on [DATE], three new areas of…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-25 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to appropriately monitor Resident #61 after a significant change in condition related to signs of urinary tract infection (UTI). This affected one resident (#61) of three residents reviewed for a change of condition. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 09/18/23 and an expiration date of 04/26/24. Diagnoses included dementia, kidney disease, urinary retention, colon cancer, and malnutrition. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 was moderately cognitively impaired. He required setup and cleanup help for eating and oral hygiene, supervision for toileting and personal hygiene, and partial to moderate assistance for bathing. He had an indwelling urinary catheter and was frequently incontinent of bowel. Review of the care plan dated 08/22/23 revealed Resident #61 was at risk for recurrent…

  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 · D2024-06-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, interviews, review of hospice notes, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to provide coordination of care between hospice and facility staff for Resident #61 related to pressure ulcer prevention. This affected one resident (#61) out of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcer prevention. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to dementia unspecified, severe, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, kidney disease, urine retention, colon cancer, malnutrition. Resident #61 was admitted to the hospice on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #61 was cognitively intact. The assessment noted he was at risk for pressure ulcer development and had no pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #61's physician orders 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, review of a self-reported incident and interview, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate and complete for Residents #2 and #11. This affected two residents (#2 and #11) of three records reviewed for accuracy. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 07/10/20 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, intermittent explosive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Further review of the medical record identified no documentation of any complaints of hip or knee pain and possible rotation of the leg for Resident #2. Review of the facility's investigation of Self-Reported Incident (SRI) #245125 revealed Resident #2's skin check identified complaints of pain to the left hip and knee and a slight internal rotation of the left leg. On 04/18/24 at 1:41 P.M., interview with Corporate Quality Assurance Nurse #107 verified Resident #2's skin check, obtained during the investigation of SRI #245125, revealed complaints of pain to his left hip and knee and a…

  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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide Resident #70 proper assistance with incontinence to prevent the resident from falling. This affected one Resident (#70). The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of Resident #70's medical records revealed an admission date of 10/21/22 and a discharge date of 01/31/24. Diagnoses included corticobasal degeneration, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, dysphagia, gastrostomy, abnormal posture, contracture left hand, COVID-19, protein-calorie malnutrition, gastrostomy status, urogenital implants, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, pressure ulcer of sacral region, stage 4, diabetes mellitus due to underlying condition with food ulcer, adult failure to thrive, disorder of white blood cells, tachycardia, history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hypertension. Review of Resident #70's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #69 had impaired cognition.…

  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 · E2023-04-06 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
  Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on resident interviews, staff interviews, review of activity calendars, and review of activity policy, the facility failed to ensure group activities were offered and provided per the resident's preferences and the activity calendar. This finding had the potential to affect 28 residents who participate in group activities including Residents #1, #2, #4, #5, #8, #12, #15, #16, #17, #22, #23, #25, #28, #30, #32, #34, #35, #36, #39, #42, #43, #48, #50, #56, #62, #121, #278, and #281. The facility census was 65. Findings include: On 04/05/23 2:03 P.M. during the Resident Council Meeting, Residents #16 and #56 stated they were unhappy that there were no activities on the weekends. Review of the activity calendar for January 2023 revealed weekend activities planned for 01/07/23 included daily visits, word search, and afternoon chats. 01/08/23 included daily visits, visits with a friend, and afternoon chats. 01/21/23 included daily visits, phone a friend, and afternoon chats. 01/22/23 included daily visits, word scramble, and afternoon chats. Review of the activity calendar 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

“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 WINDSOR HOUSE, INC. — 11 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 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $2.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 34% 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