The Pines Healthcare Center
3015 17th Street NW, Canton, OH 44708 · For profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (330) 454-6508 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 2 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 |
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 improved from 2 to 5 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 | 2.5% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 50.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.5% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.7% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.3% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.7% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
‡ 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.
46.8% 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 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 46.8%CMS range 31.9–62.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.4–14.2 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 4.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 5.5–17.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 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 80 beds and averages 77.7 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.36 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 1.97 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as 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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to the administration of psychotropic medications for two Residents (#22 and #73) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 77.Findings include:1. A review of Resident #22's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/30/24 and pertinent diagnoses of chronic pain, depression, anxiety and cellulitis. Pertinent orders included Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet 50 milligrams (MG) (an antidepressant that belongs to a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which works by balancing serotonin levels in the brain and nerves), Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for depression. This medication was ordered on 11/08/24. Another pertinent order was for Trazodone HCl Tablet 50 MG (a serotonin receptor antagonist and reuptake inhibitor ([NAME]), which means it helps restore the balance of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates mood, sleep, and mental balance,…
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 · D2026-05-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans Residents #4 and #85. This affected two residents (#4 and #85) of two residents who were investigated for comprehensive care plans. The facility census was 77.Findings include:1. A review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/27/26 and a discharge date of 05/06/26. Resident #4's pertinent diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of parotid gland, sciatica, encounter for other plastic and reconstructive surgery following medical procedure or healed injury, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), hypertensive heart disease, hearing loss, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery with unspecified angina pectoris, hypothyroidism, delirium due to known physiological condition.A review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also revealed Resident #4 required…
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 before2026-05-19 · 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, observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure non-pressure related skin impairment was comprehensively assessed. This affected one (Resident #28) of two residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin impairment. The facility census was 77.Findings include:Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed diagnoses including left side weakness and paralysis following a stroke, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, hidradenitis suppurativa (also known as acne inversa, is a condition that causes small, painful lumps to form under the skin. The lumps usually develop in areas where your skin rubs together, such as the armpits, groin, buttocks and breasts. The lumps heal slowly, recur, and can lead to tunnels under the skin and scarring.), type two diabetes mellitus, and generalized muscle weakness. An admission/Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #28…
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 · D2026-05-19 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care. This affected one resident (#37) of four residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence and had the potential to affect 42 residents (#8, #10, #11, #12, #13, #16, #17, #19, #20, #23, #24, #27, #28, #29, #32, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #46, #47, #48, #54, #56, #59, #60, #61, #65, #66, #67, #68, #69, #72, #77, #78, #79, #86, and #89) identified by the facility as incontinent. The facility census was 77.Findings include: A review of medical records for Resident #37 revealed a date of admission [DATE]. Significant diagnosis included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen level), type II diabetes mellitus, depression, morbid obesity, and need for assistance with personal care. There were no significant orders for the finding.A care plan dated 03/15/26 revealed Resident #37 to be occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder related to limited mobility, weakness, and obesity.…
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 before2026-05-19 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate and comprehensive medical records for two (Residents #10 and #28) of 34 residents whose records were reviewed. The facility census was 77.Findings include:1. Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed diagnoses including left side weakness and paralysis following a stroke, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, hidradenitis suppurativa (also known as acne inversa, is a condition that causes small, painful lumps to form under the skin. The lumps usually develop in areas where your skin rubs together, such as the armpits, groin, buttocks and breasts. The lumps heal slowly, recur, and can lead to tunnels under the skin and scarring.), type two diabetes mellitus, and generalized muscle weakness. A skin assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #28 had a history of hidradenitis suppurative but had no open areas at the time. On 03/18/26, an order was started 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · 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 record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) (an infection control measure used to prevent the spread of multi drug resistant organisms) during wound care. This affected one (Resident #11) of six residents reviewed for infection control and had the potential to affect 17 additional residents (#9, #19, #20, #29, #35, #39, #44, #48, #54, #56, #58, #66, #67, #72, #75, #86, and #87) identified as being on EBP. The facility census was 77.Findings include:A review of medical records for Resident #11 revealed the date of admission as 04/03/19. Significant diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II. Significant orders included cleanse the right heel with normal saline solution, pat dry, apply collagen to the wound bed, and cover with border foam dressing; cleanse the coccyx area with normal saline solution, pat dry, apply Medi-Honey to alginate and place on wound bed cover with thin layer of Triad paste to the peri area, cover with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · 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 record review, observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the treatment was completed as ordered for Resident #47's right lateral nose skin cancer. This finding affected one (Resident #47) of four residents reviewed for general skin conditions. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #47 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including malignant melanoma of the nose, cognitive communication deficit and weakness. Review of Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited intact cognition. Review of Resident #47's Wound Assessment Report form authored by Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #584 dated 04/25/25 revealed the resident had a right nostril melanoma wound identified on 04/02/25 which measured 2.0 centimeters (cm) length by 2.30 cm width by 0.10 cm depth. The treatment included cleansing the wound daily with normal saline and leave open 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of 5% or less. This finding affected one (Residents #8) of two residents observed for medication administration. A total of 30 medications were administered with two errors for a medication error rate of 6.67%. Findings include: Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes, weakness and anemia. Review of Resident #8's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed an order dated 05/20/24 for Omega-3 fish oil administer 1000 milligrams (mg) by mouth two times a day for a supplement; and an order dated 12/12/24 for Humalog KwikPen (insulin) inject six units subcutaneously (sq) with meals for diabetes. Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:11 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #565 of Resident #8's morning…
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 · D2024-06-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 medical record review, facility investigation review, self-reported incident review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of sexual abuse. This affected three (Resident #7, #10, and 14) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Medical record revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiparesis and hemiplegia following cerebral infarction, schizophrenia, history of substance abuse, muscle weakness, dysphagia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Further review of the medical record revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Medical record revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, and history of cocaine abuse, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Further review of the 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 · D2024-06-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, self-reported incident review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete an accurate smoking risk assessment for two residents (#7 and #12) and failed to ensure smoking supervision for Resident #7, who was severely cognitively impaired. This affected two (Resident #7 and #12) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 77. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiparesis and hemiplegia following cerebral infarction, schizophrenia, history of substance abuse, muscle weakness, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/30/24, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a physician progress note, dated 06/18/24, revealed Resident #7 had the diagnoses of hemiplegia, hemiparesis, dysphagia, and contractures of 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.
Show the remaining 9 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, facility investigation review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete medical records. This affected three (Resident #7, #10, and #14) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiparesis and hemiplegia following cerebral infarction, schizophrenia, history of substance abuse, muscle weakness, dysphagia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Further review revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Medical record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, and history of cocaine abuse, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Further review revealed the resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of physician orders, review of medication information from Medscape and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and manufacturer information. Four medication errors were identified out of 38 opportunities resulting in a 10.5% medication error rate. This affected three (Residents #11, #14, and #28) of three residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: 1. On 10/02/23 at 8:46 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100 was observed administering medication to Resident #14. Among the medications administered was hydralazine (a vasodilator) 25 milligrams (mg). Review of Resident #14's physician order sheet revealed an order dated 03/22/23 for hydralazine 25 mg with instructions to administer three tablets every eight hours for hypertension. On 10/02/23 at 10:17 A.M., LPN #100 verified she only gave one of the hydralazine but should have administered three. 2. On 10/02/23 at 9:03 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #101 was observed administering medication to Resident #28. Among…
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 · F2023-09-14 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to have sufficient dietary staff to serve meals timely. This had the potential to affect 70 of 70 resident who received meals from the kitchen, as Resident #60 received no food by mouth. The facility census was 71. Findings include: Review of the facility dining times revealed the lunch meal was to start serving at 11:30 A.M. Interview on 09/11/23 at 8:30 A.M. with Registered Dietician (RD) #900 revealed three dietary staff called off work today including the cook. She stated the Food Service Director (FSD) #867 was acting as the cook. Interview on 09/11/23 at 8:47 A.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #805 revealed she was assisting with meal service due to three call-offs. She stated other staff have assisted with dietary in the past due to call-offs or insufficient staffing. Interviews on 09/11/23 from 9:00 A.M. through 11:30 A.M. during the screening process for the annual survey with multiple residents (# 9, #13, #16, #17, #19, #, 26, #36, #38, #45, #58, #64, #171 and #175) revealed multiple concerns with dietary…
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 · F2023-09-14 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect 70 of 70 resident who received food from the kitchen, as Resident #60 received no food by mouth. The facility census was 71. Findings include: Interviews on 09/11/23 from 9:00 A.M through 11:30 A.M. during the screening process for the annual survey with multiple residents (# 9, #13, #16, #17, #19, #, 26, #36, #38, #45, #58, #64, #171 and #175) revealed concerns with dietary including palatability of meals. Observation and interview on 09/12/23 at 11:35 A.M. revealed the hot food on the steam table had temperatures over 165 degrees. A test tray left the steam table at 12:15 P.M. The test tray was served last at 12:34 P.M. The culinary director from sister facility (CD) #910 proceeded to take the temperatures of the meal. The chicken thigh was 123 degrees, the mashed potatoes were 130 degrees and the peas were 127 degrees. CD #910 revealed the food should be over 135 degrees. Review of a list of resident diets revealed 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 · F2023-09-14 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespreadEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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 and interview, the facility failed to serve meals in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect 70 of 70 residents who received food from the kitchen. Resident #60 received no food by mouth. The facility census was 71. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility dining times revealed the lunch meal was to start serving at 11:30 A.M. Interview on 09/11/23 at 8:30 A.M. with Registered Dietician (RD) #900 revealed three dietary staff called off work today including the cook. She stated the Food Service Director (FSD) #867 was acting as the cook. Interview on 09/11/23 at 8:47 A.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #805 revealed she was assisting with meal service due to three call-offs. She stated other staff have assisted with dietary in the past due to call-offs or insufficient staffing. Interviews on 09/11/23 from 9:00 A.M. through 11:30 A.M. during the screening process for the annual survey with multiple residents (# 9, #13, #16, #17, #19, #, 26, #36, #38, #45, #58, #64, #171 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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2's care plan meetings were completed at least quarterly. This finding affected one (Resident #2) of four residents investigated for care planning. Findings include: Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 11/10/22 with a readmission date of 07/27/23. Diagnoses include acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertensive heart disease and history of falling. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive assessment revealed the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #2's Care Conference Review form dated 11/15/22 revealed staff conducted a care conference. Review of Resident #2's progress note dated 05/11/23 at 3:25 P.M. indicated the daughter was called to discuss the resident's code status and hospice services. Review of Resident #2's medical record did not reveal other documentation on care planning. Interview on 09/13/23 at 9:40 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed care conferences were not completed…
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 before2023-09-14 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. A total of 26 medications were administered with five medication errors for a medication error rate of 19.23%. This finding affected three residents (Residents #32, #53 and #66) of six residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, fibromyalgia and diabetes. Review of Resident #32's physician orders revealed an order dated 06/18/20 for Cymbalta give 60 mg (milligrams) by mouth in the morning for major depression and give 60 mg by mouth at bedtime for depression; an order dated 11/11/22 for Lasix 20 mg (diuretic) give one tablet by mouth in the morning for edema; and an order dated 01/05/23 for artificial tears instill one drop in both eyes every morning and at bedtime for dry eyes. Observation on 09/11/23 at 9:57 A.M. with Licensed Practical…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #39 received the appropriate food items to meet dietary needs identified on meal tickets. This finding affected one (Resident #39) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 71. Findings include: Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia, unspecified dementia and epilepsy. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #39's nutritional care plan revealed an intervention dated 05/12/23 to provide meals per the dietary order. Review of Resident #39's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/06/23 for a regular diet, pureed texture and regular consistency. Review of Resident #39's dietary meal ticket dated 09/11/23 for the breakfast meal indicated the resident was to receive pureed…
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.
- No harm found · B2026-05-19 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman of transfers or discharges for four Residents (#3, #4, #28, and #85) of six residents reviewed for proper discharge processes. The facility census was 77.Findings include: 1. A review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admission date 04/29/26 and a discharge date of 05/07/26. Resident #3's pertinent diagnoses included surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, incisional hernia without obstruction or gangrene, malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri, type II diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, aphasia and depression. A review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also revealed Resident #3 required supervision with all activities of daily living (ADL), transfers…
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 COMMUNICARE HEALTH — 110 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 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 109 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 109; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SXCY MSTR LSCO, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2018 |
| HEALTH CARE LEASE FACILITIES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/01/2018 |
| SXCY HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/01/2018 |
| ROMEO, DOMINIC | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| STOLTZ, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| WILHEIM, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| 17TH STREET MGT CO., LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| GROVES, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/14/2023 |
| HOFFMAN, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2023 |
| STRONG, CHAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/18/2025 |
| C.R. STOLTZ FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| C.R. STOLTZ IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| I. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| R.S. WILHEIM IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| RONALD S WILHEIM 2012 SPOUSAL TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| ROSEDALE FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| RRW, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| S.L. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| WILHEIM FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
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 365862. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-19, 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.