Eliza At Chagrin Falls
16695 Chillicothe Road, Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 · Non profit - Corporation · 29 certified beds · (440) 543-4221 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (75%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.0% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 25.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.2% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 23.3% | 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 | 6.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.1% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 16.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.6% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.7% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.9% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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.
63.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 210 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 27.7% 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 83 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 0.76 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 63.1%CMS range 56.8–69.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.1–15.1 | 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 | 27.7% | 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 | 22.9% | 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 | 28.9% | 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 | 98.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.5–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 29 beds and averages 27.1 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 2 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 4.48 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.13 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.72 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.25 to 0.84 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 75% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to appropriately label and date food for storage. This had the potential to affect 21 of 22 residents who received meals from the facility kitchen. The facility identified one resident (Resident #1) who received no food by mouth. The facility census was 22.Findings include: Observations on 01/20/26 at 9:52 A.M. with Dietary Manager #239 during the initial main kitchen tour revealed the following:In dry storage there was a bag of tortilla chips open to air and not labeled or dated.In the refrigerator there was an almost full pan of orange gelatin left uncovered, unlabeled and undated, a bag of diced carrots left open, unlabeled and undated, and a bag of cheddar cheese left open, unlabeled and undated.In the freezer there was a bag of French fries open to air not labeled and dated and a bag of fried chicken open to air, not labeled or dated.Interview at the time of the observation with Dietary Manager #239 verified the above findings during the initial kitchen tour.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide showers/bathing per resident preference and schedule. This affected six residents (#10, #11, #14, #25, #34 and #37) out of 22 residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 22.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 06/15/24 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, acute cystitis (bladder infection), dementia, heart failure, anxiety disorder, delirium, and malignant neoplasm of trachea. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderate cognitive decline. The resident required moderate assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL) including grooming, hygiene, and toileting needs. Resident #25 was dependent on staff for all mobility and transfer needs and utilized a wheelchair. The resident was always incontinent of bowel…
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 · Ecited before2026-01-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services memorandum and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were in place or implemented when indicated and the facility failed to ensure the catheter valve/port on Resident #33's indwelling catheter (a flexible tube used to drain urine from the bladder) drainage bag (a bag that collects urine) was not on the floor. This affected four Residents (#1, #14, #33, #36) out of ten residents reviewed for EBP and/or catheter use. This had the potential to affect 14 residents (#1, #6, #10, #12, #14, #19, #21, #22, #25, #27, #28, #33, #34 and #36) identified with EBP and seven residents (#6, #10, #14, #19, #22, #25 and #33) identified by the facility with urinary catheters. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 01/14/26 and his diagnoses included aftercare following surgery of genitourinary system, acute cystitis 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 · D2026-01-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to appropriately cover an indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag with a dignity/privacy pouch. This affected one resident (#33) out of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters and had the potential to affect seven residents (#6, #10, #14, #19, #22, #25 and #33) identified by the facility with urinary catheters. The facility census was 22.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 01/19/26 and his diagnoses included benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate causing urinary issues) with lower urinary tract symptoms, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. Review of January 2026 physician orders revealed Resident #33 had an order for an indwelling urinary catheter and catheter care was to be provided every shift. Observation on 01/20/26 at 9:16 A.M. revealed Resident #33 was lying in a bed with his indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag on the side of his bed with part of the bag laying on the floor. From the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-22 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. This affected two residents (#1 and #25) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 22.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 06/15/24 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, acute cystitis (bladder infection), dementia, heart failure, anxiety disorder, delirium, and malignant neoplasm of trachea. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderate cognitive decline. Resident #25 required moderate assistance for all activities of daily living including grooming, hygiene, and toileting needs, and was dependent on staff for mobility and transfers utilizing a wheelchair. Review of the care plan dated 12/26/25 revealed Resident #25 had congestive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure all medications were stored appropriately in medication carts. This had the potential to affect all 11 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation of the medication carts completed on 05/30/23 at 9:15 A.M. revealed there were a total of 23 loose medications observed. There were 13 loose medications observed in the Cherry Hill medication cart, as well as 10 loose medications and a yellow powder spilled throughout the top drawer of the Maple Lane medication cart. The facility had a total of two medication carts. Interview on 05/30/23 at 9:30 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #801 revealed she confirmed there were 13 loose medications observed in the Cherry Hill medication cart, as well as 10 loose medications and a yellow powder spilled throughout the top drawer of the Maple Lane medication cart.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the overhead hood vents, fire suppression nozzles, and backsplash behind the stove in a clean, sanitary, and safe manner. This had the potential to affect ten of the eleven residents residing in the facility. Resident #76 did not receive food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 11. Findings include: A tour of the kitchen on 05/30/23 from 9:15 A.M. through 9:44 A.M. with Dietary Manager #821 revealed the overhead vents and the fire suppression nozzles were greasy and had accumulated dust. The backsplash behind the stovetop was greasy. Dietary Manager #821 verified the condition of the hood, nozzles, and back splash at the time of the observation.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-01 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment for Resident #275 within 14 days after admission. This finding affected one resident (#275) of ten residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility census was 11. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #275 revealed an admission date of 05/16/23. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of bilateral middle cerebral arteries, celiac disease, Parkinson's disease, and chronic heart failure. Review of Resident #276's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments revealed an admission assessment was initiated with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/19/23 but was not completed as required. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #796 on 05/31/23 at 12:50 P.M. confirmed the admission MDS assessment for Resident #275 was opened on 05/19/23 but sections C, D, E, and Q were still in progress, and the assessment was not completed on time. Interview with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #802 on 05/31/23 at 1:10 P.M. confirmed 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 · D2023-06-01 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #7 to include anticoagulant use. This affected one resident (#7) of five residents who were reviewed for care plans with high-risk medications. The facility census was 11. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 05/10/23. Diagnoses included acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, essential primary hypertension, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/17/23, revealed Resident #7 had intact cognition. Resident #7 received an anticoagulant seven of the seven days prior to the assessment reference date. Review of Resident #7's physician orders effective May 2023 revealed Eliquis 5 milligrams (mg) twice daily for blood thinner (anticoagulant). Review of Resident #7's comprehensive care plan dated 05/24/23 revealed a focus of activities of daily living, risk for falls, alteration in nutrition status, risk for pain, and risk…
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 · D2023-06-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the fall care plan for Resident #76 was updated in a timely and complete manner. This affected one resident (#76) of ten resident care plans reviewed. The facility census was 11. Finding include: Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including intracerebral hemorrhage, gastrostomy status, and abnormal findings on diagnostic imaging of central nervous system. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/15/23, revealed Resident #76 had severely impaired cognition. The resident could sometimes make self understood and sometimes understood others. Resident #76 was totally dependent on two people for transfers. The resident was totally dependent on one person for locomotion and eating. The resident required the extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The Morse Fall scale reviews completed on 05/10/23, 05/16/23, 05/18/23, 05/21/23, 05/22/23,…
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 · Fcited before2021-04-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to appropriately store medications in two of two medication carts, and in one of one medication room refrigerator. This had the potential to affect all 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 04/27/21 at 11:08 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #250 during medication administration from the medication cart labeled cherry revealed a vial of Lispro U-100 insulin stored in the top drawer of the medication cart. The Lispro insulin vial was opened, not dated, not labeled, and was not in a labeled storage box or container. Interview with RN #250 at the time of the observation confirmed the above finding. Observation on 04/27/21 at 11:26 A.M. with RN #251 of medication storage room revealed three Aplisol 5 tuberculin units per 0.1 milliliter vials (used to diagnose tuberculosis) stored in the refrigerator. Each of the three Aplisol vials were opened and undated. Interview with RN #251 at the time of the observation confirmed the above finding. Observation on 04/27/21 at 11:44…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-04-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure transmission based precautions were initiated upon admission for Resident #70, the facility failed to ensure staff and visitors followed appropriate transmission based precautions guidelines for Resident #70, and the facility failed to ensure soiled laundry was handled appropriately for Resident #119. This affected two Residents (#70 and #119) of three residents reviewed for infection control, and had the potential to affect all 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #70 was admitted on [DATE] from the hospital with diagnoses including sicca syndrome (Sjogren syndrome) (an autoimmune disease), orthostatic hypotension, essential primary hypertension, and repeated falls. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition, required limited one staff assistance for bed mobility and toileting, limited 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 · D2021-04-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was dated per acceptable standards of nursing practice for Residents #119 and #123, and the facility did not ensure oxygen administration orders were in place for Resident #123. This affected two Residents (#119 and #123) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility reported two residents on oxygen therapy. The facility census was 19. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #119 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of sepsis, urinary tract infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure. Review of physician's orders dated 04/23/21 revealed continuous oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute (LPM), and check oxygen saturation and respiratory rate every shift. Observation on 04/26/21 at 1:27 P.M. revealed Resident #119 sitting up in a wheelchair with oxygen nasal cannula in place, oxygen setting at two LPM, and the oxygen tubing…
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 · C2023-06-01 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post nurse staffing data daily as required. This had the potential to affect all 11 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 06/01/23 at 9:40 A.M. revealed posted nurse staffing data in a plastic sign holder which was displayed on the receptionist desk at the front entrance of the facility. The posted nurse staffing data was dated 05/30/23. Interview at the time of the observation with Receptionist #819 verified the posted nurse staffing data displayed was dated 05/30/23. Receptionist #819 removed the nurse staffing data from the plastic sign holder which also held nurse staffing data sheets dated for 05/26/23, 05/27/23, 05/28/23 and 05/29/23. There were no nurse staffing data sheets for 05/31/23 and 06/01/23. Receptionist #819 stated the facility scheduler provided the nurse staffing data sheets for posting and was off from work and did not provide the prepared sheets for 05/31/23 and 06/01/23. Observation and interview on 06/01/23 at 10:11 A.M. with Receptionist #819 indicated the nurse staffing…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOYSON, RICHARD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/29/2023 |
| FLETCHER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| FODOR, ALAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| FOX, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| GRAY, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/29/2023 |
| HARTNEY, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| KRASSEN, GLENN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| MESSINA, MICHELE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| ROGERSON, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| SCANLON, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| SEREDA, SHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| SHROCK, TERRIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| STONER, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| TRACY, ALLEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| WEIGLE, FRED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| WEITZEL, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| YOUNG, HILTON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/29/2023 |
| GRIVEAS, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/29/2023 |
| HERNANDEZ, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/29/2023 |
| SHIELDS, KATHLEEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/29/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $363K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Ohio Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 366379. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.