Arbors At Carroll
3680 Dolson Court NW, Carroll, OH 43112 · For profit - Corporation · 99 certified beds · (740) 654-0641 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Oct 2023
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 3.3% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.6% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.3% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.4% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.7% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.0% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.45 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
48.7% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.1% 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 26 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 48.7%CMS range 33.0–66.0 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 7.0–14.5 | 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 | 46.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 26.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 26.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 92.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.32 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- 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 observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to wear appropriate personal protective equipment during a mechanical lift transfer of a resident who was on enhanced barrier precautions. This affected one (Resident #17) of three residents reviewed for mechanical lift transfers. The facility census was 93 residents.Findings include:Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 03/17/26 with a readmission date of 04/09/26. Resident #17 had diagnoses that included heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, chronic kidney disease stage 3, polyneuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, dysphagia, and lymphedema.Review of Resident #17's care plan revealed the resident had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit with an intervention to transfer the resident with two person assist and use of mechanical lift initiated on 03/17/26. Resident #17 also required enhanced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3 was treated with dignity when his indwelling urinary catheter collection bag was not covered and was visible from the hallway. This affected one (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for catheters. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility 12/23/25. Resident #3 had diagnoses that included morbid (severe) obesity with alveolar hypoventilation, obstructive and reflux uropathy, major depressive disorder, retention of urine unspecified, hydronephrosis with ureteral stricture, and overactive bladder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling catheter. Review of the care plan dated 08/25/25 revealed Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related 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 · D2026-03-05 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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, medical record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide privacy while incontinence care was provided. This affected one resident (#22) of one resident reviewed for bowel and bladder. The facility census was 91. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an initial admission date of 01/06/23 with diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident with left sided hemiplegia, dementia, convulsions, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, dysphagia, seizures, peripheral vascular disease, celiac artery compression syndrome, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety disorder.Review of the plan of care dated 10/11/23 revealed the resident had bowel and bladder incontinence related to impaired mobility and physical limitations. Interventions included assist the resident with toileting needs, check at regular intervals and change as needed, and provide perineal (peri) care after each incontinent episode and apply house barrier cream after…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-05 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 observation, medical record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide off-loading (a critical technique used to reduce pressure on specific areas of the body, particularly in wound care) for a stage III pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss where subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include tunneling or undermining). This affected one resident (#21) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 91.Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #21 revealed an initial admission date of 09/19/22 with the latest readmission date of 02/04/26 with diagnoses including but not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute and chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, malignant neoplasm of bladder, peripheral vascular disease, morbid obesity, neuropathy, pain, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-05 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide timely podiatry care for Residents #30 and #51. This affected 2 residents (#30 and #51) of 9 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 91.Findings Include:1. Record review for Resident #30 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: spinal stenosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder.Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was dependent on staff for personal hygiene.Further review of the medical record revealed Resident #30 was last seen by podiatry services in the facility on 10/21/25. Observation and interview on 03/02/26 at 3:42 P.M. with Resident #30 revealed she had long toenails that were hanging over the skin. The resident confirmed she would like her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-05 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for 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 observation, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and review of facility policy on dental services, the facility failed to ensure residents received timely dental services related to dentures. This affected one (#3) of three residents reviewed for dental. The facility census was 91.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility 12/23/25. Resident #3 had diagnoses that included chronic respiratory failure unspecified whether with hypoxia or hypercapnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease unspecified, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic kidney disease stage 3, morbid (severe) obesity with alveolar hypoventilation, obstructive and reflux uropathy, major depressive disorder, dysphagia, retention of urine unspecified, dependence on supplemental oxygen, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without…
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 · E2025-11-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure safe storage and labeling of medications. This affected eight residents (#49, #56, #57, #58, #62, #63, #68 and #70) of 29 who received medications for the medication cart on South Long Hall. The facility census was 95.Findings include: 1. Review of Resident # 49's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including lumbar spinal stenosis, diabetes type two, low back pain, idiopathic neuropathy, and hypertension. Review of the care plan dated 02/06/25 revealed Resident #49 had an impaired musculoskeletal status related to spinal stenosis and osteoarthritis with interventions including administering medications as ordered. In addition, Resident #49 was at risk for pain related to limited mobility, comorbidities with interventions including administering medications per orders and observing for side effects and effectiveness.Review of Resident #49's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for assistance received turning and repositioning and transferring to a char as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #59) of two residents reviewed for positioning. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed an admission date of 12/11/20. Medical diagnoses included cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, speech disturbances, contractures of muscle, dysphasia, cognitive communication deficit, and congenital deformities of skull, face and jaw. Review of the care plan dated 10/30/23 revealed Resident #59 had activities of daily living self-care performance deficit related to cerebral palsy, cognitive impairment, and an impaired ability to communicate. Listed interventions included placing the resident in a chair from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M. daily and encouraging participation in activities. The care plan also indicated Resident #59 was at risk for impaired skin integrity due to being…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure a referral to an ophthalmologist for cataract surgery was made for Resident #17. This affected one resident (#17) of two residents reviewed for communication and sensory. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/24/23 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, depression, anxiety, myasthenia gravis, dysphagia, personality disorder, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #17's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had intact cognition. Review of Resident #17's plan of care dated 10/31/23 revealed the resident was at risk for visual impairment related to age, diabetes, and myasthenia gravis. Interventions included administering medications and treatments as ordered, arranging a consultation with the eye care provider as needed, encouraging the resident to wear glasses, and assist 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 before2024-12-12 · 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, staff interview, facility fall investigation reports, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement timely interventions after a resident fall. This affected one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 96. Findings Include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were conversion disorder, intellectual disabilities, aneurysm of heart, hypertension, hyperparathyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lack of coordination, dysphagia, dementia, major depressive disorder, spondylosis, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, difficulty walking, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, and hypertensive heart disease. Review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/18/24, revealed she had a mild cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1 fall investigation, dated 09/30/24, revealed she attempted to go to the bathroom independently, and fell between 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 24 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietician recommendations were implemented timely and orders were followed. This affected 2 (Residents #12 and #74) of six residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 96. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 08/06/10. Medical diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, dysphasia, muscle weakness, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit, anemia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and unspecified psychosis. Review of Resident #12's care plan dated 10/31/23 revealed the resident was at risk for altered nutritional status related to therapeutic diet, and medical diagnosis that include hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, cognitive communication deficit, anemia, and GERD. A listed goal included for Resident #12 to receive and tolerate his diet, and to maintain weight with no further significant changes. Care planned interventions included to periodically obtain the resident's weight,…
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 · D2024-12-12 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received trauma-informed care that accounted for the resident's experiences and preferences in order to minimize or eliminate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the residents. This affected two residents (#73 and #43) of two residents reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility census was 96. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #73's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/28/24. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the left radius, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, systemic lupus, major depressive disorder, muscle weakness, dysphasia, cognitive communication deficit, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Interview on 12/09/24 at 10:55 A.M. with Resident #73 confirmed that she had witnessed a family suicide, and was triggered by gun shots and loud noises. Resident #73 stated she had not been involved in care planning related to her PTSD diagnosis, but she used coloring 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 · D2024-12-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure as-needed controlled medications were recorded on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) when administered. This affected one resident (Resident #81) of two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of Resident #81's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/15/24 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, anxiety disorder, osteomyelitis, cognitive communication deficit, depression, colostomy status, and resistance to vancomycin. Review of Resident #81's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Review of Resident #81's plan of care dated 02/23/24 revealed Resident #81 was at risk for pain related to comorbidities. Interventions included but were not limited to administering medications as ordered, offering non-pharmacological interventions to relieve pain,…
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 · D2024-12-12 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure medication parameters were in place and followed for Resident #34, #69, and #79, who received blood pressure medication. This affected three residents (#34, #69, and #79) of six residents who were reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 96. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #69 revealed an admission date of 07/26/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, acute respiratory failure, osteomyelitis, cognitive communication deficit, anxiety disorder, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. Review of Resident #69's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 11/22/24 revealed he had intact cognition. Review of Resident #69's plan of care dated 07/17/24 revealed the resident had impaired cardiovascular status related to hyperlipidemia and hypertension. Interventions included observing and reporting to the physician any signs of hypertension, administering…
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 · D2024-12-12 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to complete laboratory testing as ordered by the physician for Resident #81. This affected one resident (#81) of two residents reviewed for hydration. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of Resident #81's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/15/24 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, anxiety disorder, osteomyelitis, cognitive communication deficit, depression, colostomy status, and resistance to vancomycin. Review of Resident #81's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Review of Resident #81's laboratory results dated [DATE] revealed her potassium was high at 5.6 milliequivalents (mEq) per liter (L). Review of Resident #81's progress note dated 12/4/24 revealed her potassium was 5.6 mEq/L on her laboratory results. The Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) gave an order 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 · E2024-02-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary spreadsheets were followed and all food items on the spreadsheets were offered to the residents according to their needs on a level three dysphagia diet. This affected 14 residents, (Residents #6, #10, #14, #17, #31, #33, #48, #59, #61, #64, #66, #72, #85, and #89) the facility identified as having physician orders for a level three dysphagia diet, out of 87 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Resident #68 was identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the lunch menu dated 02/07/24 revealed ham steak, rice pilaf, broccoli and cheese sauce, assorted cookies, and a beverage was the scheduled meal. Review of the dietary spreadsheets dated 02/07/24 revealed residents with an a level three dysphagia diet should receive ground ham steak with gravy, soft rice pilaf with gravy, chopped soft broccoli and cheese sauce, and pudding. Observation of tray line for the lunch meal on 02/07/24 at 11:55 A.M. with [NAME]…
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 · E2024-02-14 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of the pureed ham recipe and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared to the appropriate pureed consistency. This affected nine residents, (Residents #2, #22, #27, #29, #41, #49, #50, #76, and #297) the facility identified as having physician orders for pureed diets, out of 87 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Resident #68 was identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the lunch menu dated 02/07/24 revealed ham steak, rice pilaf, broccoli and cheese sauce, assorted cookies, and a beverage was the scheduled meal. Review of the dietary spreadsheets dated 02/07/24 revealed residents with an ordered pureed textured diet should receive pureed ham steak, pureed rice pilaf, pureed broccoli with cheese sauce, pureed cookies, and a beverage. Review of the recipe, Pureed Ham Steak, revealed for preparation, combine chicken base and water to make chicken broth. Place prepared meat in a washed and sanitized food processor. Gradually add…
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 · E2024-02-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow proper hand hygiene protocols during pureed food preparation. This had the potential to affect all nine residents, (Residents #2, #22, #27, #29, #41, #49, #50, #76, and #297) the facility identified as having physician orders for pureed diets, out of 87 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Resident #68 was identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the lunch menu dated 02/07/24 revealed ham steak, rice pilaf, broccoli and cheese sauce, assorted cookies, and a beverage was the scheduled meal. Review of the dietary spreadsheets dated 02/07/24 revealed residents with an ordered pureed textured diet should receive pureed ham steak, pureed rice pilaf, pureed broccoli with cheese sauce, pureed cookies, and a beverage. Review of the recipe, Pureed Ham Steak, revealed for preparation, combine chicken base and water to make chicken broth. Place prepared meat in a washed and sanitized food processor. Gradually add broth…
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 · E2024-02-14 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, review of laboratory test results, review of McGreer's criteria for infections, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow antibiotic stewardship policies and procedures prior to starting antibiotic treatment for two residents (Residents #43, and #84). The facility also failed to ensure laboratory test results were received prior to starting antibiotic treatment for one resident (Resident #11). The deficient practices affected three residents (Residents #11, #43, and #84) of seven residents reviewed for infections and antibiotic use. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an initial admission date on 06/08/21 and a readmission date on 10/23/23. Medical diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), other irritable bowel syndrome, other disorders of urea cycle metabolism, delusional disorders, overactive bladder, urinary tract infection, and severe…
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 · D2024-02-14 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 observations, medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to comprehensively assess Resident #84's dental status. This affected one resident (#84) of 27 sampled residents. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #84 revealed an admission date of 08/04/23 with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hemiplegia. Review of a nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed it stated Resident #84 does not use dentures or partials and edentulous was not marked. Review of an initial nutrition assessment dated [DATE] revealed it stated Resident #84 had her own teeth. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 08/11/23 revealed Resident #84 was not edentulous and did not have broken or loose dentures. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment completed 11/20/23 revealed Resident #84 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition. It stated the 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 · Dcited before2024-02-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled to Resident #46. The deficient practice affected one resident (#46) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date on 11/18/23. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, morbid obesity, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 had intact cognition and scored a 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment. Resident #46 required partial to moderate assistance from staff for showering or bathing and for tub or shower transfers. Review of shower documentation dated December 2023 revealed Resident #46 was scheduled 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 · D2024-02-14 · 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, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure timely treatment was initiated urinary tract infections. This affected two residents (#43 and #84) of six residents reviewed for antibiotic use/urinary tract infections. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #84 revealed an admission date of 08/04/23 with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and urinary retention. Review of nursing progress notes on 11/13/23 at 11:10 A.M. revealed Resident #84 received the last dose of an antibiotic and stated she feels a little better but not all the way. The resident continued to be slightly confused at times. The nurse updated the nurse practitioner who said it was okay to get another urine culture if needed in the morning. On 11/14/23 at 11:37 P.M. a urine specimen was collected. Review of urine culture results reported on 11/18/23 revealed greater than 100,000 Proteus Mirabilis. The bacteria 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-14 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident interview, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #39 received treatment to maintain vision abilities. This affected one resident (#39) of one resident reviewed for communication/sensory abilities. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 03/10/23 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, diabetes, and psychosis. Record review revealed the resident went out of the facility three times weekly for dialysis. Review of an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 01/01/24 revealed Resident #39 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition (a score of 8-12 = moderately impaired cognition and a score of 13-15 = intact cognition). It stated the resident had impaired vision with no corrective lenses. A quarterly MDS on 10/01/23 also indicated impaired vision with no corrective lenses. Review of a vision consult report dated 04/27/23 revealed Resident #39 was scheduled 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 before2024-02-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 observation, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer to Resident #19's nose caused by his glasses. This affected one resident (#19) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The census was 88. Findings Include: Record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis, cerebral infarction, anxiety disorder, diverticulitis, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit, hyperlipidemia, contracture of left hand, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/01/24, revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact. The assessment noted the resident was at risk for pressure ulcer development. Review of Resident #19's physician orders, dated 11/27/23, revealed an order 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 · D2024-02-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident interview, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #85 received services to prevent decrease in range of motion and to maintain or improve mobility. This affected one resident (#85) of three residents reviewed for positioning/mobility. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 06/07/23 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke) with hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness/paralysis). Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 12/12/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #85 had impairment in range of motion on one side, upper and lower. The resident was dependent upon staff for transfers. Review of a physical therapy discharge summary revealed Resident #85 received physical therapy from 10/26/23 to 01/16/24. It stated the resident had significant mobility deficits with increased weakness. The resident had resided at home prior 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 before2024-02-14 · 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 record review, staff interview, review of fall investigations, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete neurological checks following unwitnessed falls for Resident #17. The deficient practice affected one resident (#17) of two residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an initial admission date of 08/07/23 and a readmission date of 09/21/23. Medical diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, history of falling, and type II diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was rarely or never understood. Per staff assessment, Resident #17 had moderately impaired cognition. Resident #17 required partial to moderate assistance from staff with transfers and used a walker or a wheelchair for mobility. Review of the fall investigations for Resident #17 revealed the resident had unwitnessed falls on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, medical record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure all physician ordered nutritional interventions to prevent weight loss were consistently implemented for Resident #53. This affected one resident (Resident #53) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, acute respiratory failure, cardiomyopathy, dysphagia, muscle weakness, hypertension, polyneuropathy, anxiety disorder, depression, and hypotension. Review of Resident #53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 12/05/23, revealed she had no cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for eating, had no significant weight changes and received nutrition by mouth with a mechanically altered diet and nutrition through a feeding tube. Review of Resident #53's current…
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 · D2024-02-14 · 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
Based on observations, medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility list of medications not to be crushed, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (%). The medication error rate was calculated to be 15% and included four medication errors of 26 medication administration opportunities. This affected one resident (Resident #39) of six residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 03/10/23 and diagnoses including end stage renal disease and diabetes. The resident received hemodialysis three times weekly. There was no evidence of any physician's orders to crush medications. Observation of medication administration on 02/12/24 at 8:45 A.M. revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #528 preparing medications to administer to Resident #39. The following medications were crushed in applesauce together: Sevelamer 800 milligrams (used to lower phosphorus in the blood of patients receiving kidney dialysis), Ropinirole…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were administered medication in accordance with physician orders and prescribing instructions for use of the medications. This affected two residents (Residents #46 and #297) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #297 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included arthritis due to other bacteria and left knee bacteremia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #297 was cognitively intact, required moderate assistance for activities of daily living and was receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Review of the discharge information from the hospital dated 12/29/23 for Resident #297 revealed a primary diagnosis of blood stream infection and was ordered to receive intravenous (IV) Vancomycin (medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-14 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for 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, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide timely dental care and services for one resident (Resident #46). This affected one resident (Resident #46) of one reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date on 11/18/23. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure, type two diabetes mellitus, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), asthma, morbid obesity, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 had intact cognition and scored a 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment. Resident #46 required assistance from staff which ranged from set up help to maximal assistance to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Resident #46 had missing or broken teeth. Review of the plan of care revised 12/01/23…
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 · E2023-10-24 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of a self reporting incident (SRI), review of the facility's related investigation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation when residents' controlled narcotic pain medication was not misappropriated. This affected 18 residents (#10, #17, #22, #26, #29, #42, #47, #53, #67, #89, #90, #91, #92, #93, #94, #95, #96, and #97) identified by the facility during their investigation into an allegation of misappropriation as having had their controlled narcotic pain medications misappropriated. Findings include: A review of SRI #240119 revealed an allegation of misappropriation was made known to the facility on [DATE]. The initial source of the allegation was a facility nurse and the alleged perpetrator was identified as Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100. The initial resident/ victim was identified as Resident #53.…
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 · D2023-10-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 review of a self reporting incident (SRI), review of the facility's related investigation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal/ emotional abuse. This affected one (Resident #46) of one residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: A review of SRI #240024 with a date of discover of 10/10/23 revealed an allegation of emotional/ verbal abuse was made known to the facility. The initial source of the allegation was from Resident #46, who was identified as the resident/ victim. The alleged perpetrator was a staff member and was identified as Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #22. Witnesses to the alleged emotional/ verbal abuse included the facility's Director of Nursing (DON), LPN #45, and Activity Director #39. A brief description of the allegation revealed Resident #46 came to the nurses' station and requested cough medicine from the oncoming nurse (LPN #22). LPN #22 informed the resident she…
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 before2023-08-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, resident interview, family interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents that were dependent on staff for personal care received the assistance needed to complete oral hygiene care. This affected three residents (#1, #12, and #81) of four residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). Findings include: 1. A review of Resident #81's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, adult inset diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder. A review of Resident #81's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate difficulty with hearing, without the use of a hearing aide, and his speech was clear. He was sometimes able to make himself understood and was sometimes able to understand others. His cognition was severely impaired, but was not known to reject care. He required an extensive assist of two…
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 before2023-08-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on a closed record review, review of a facility incident report related to a medication error, review of an employee file, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from a significant medication error. This affected one resident (#84) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: A review of Resident #84's closed medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for short respite stay that was to only be over the weekend. He remained in the facility through 07/31/23, when he was transferred to the emergency room directly from his day program set up through the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities. He did not return to the facility as he was re-admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebral palsy, quadriplegia, seizure disorder, neuromuscular scoliosis of the thoracic region,…
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 ARBORS AT OHIO — 16 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARK OPCO GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2015 |
| B&Y HEALTHCARE S CORP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| B&Y TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| CODY HEALTHCARE S CORP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| CRAIG FLASHNER 2007 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| NORCROSS, ROBERT | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| ROGERS, STACEY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| KIRK, KRISTINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| FLASHNER, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| PERLSTEIN, YITZCHOK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| NOBLE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 12 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 76% 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 $639K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
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 365474. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-05, 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.