No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Chardon Center

620 Water Street, Chardon, OH 44024 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 99 certified beds · (440) 285-9400 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (440) 285-9400 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Dec 20191 actual-harm citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2019
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
510 5th Ave Ste 130 · (440) 279-1500 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Pharmacy0.3 mi
351 Center Street
Grocery
351 Center St · (440) 286-4949 · Call to confirm hours
Park
220 Basquin Dr · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
100 Parker Ct · (440) 285-7644

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 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 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.5%5.3%15.4%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.3%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.2%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.4%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms14.1%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.9%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.9%6.1%16.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication27.5%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.6%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.0%21.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table11.2%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.1%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.5%24.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.7%12.9%12.0%typical

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.

56.4% 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 43 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

56.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.37U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 22 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF56.4%CMS range 39.9–67.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.2%CMS range 6.8–13.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge50.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge40.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge50.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.3%CMS range 3.6–10.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.861.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.27
RN hours/ resident / day
1.28
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.83
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.38
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.14
RN hoursweekends
36.6%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 80.5 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.27 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-17)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2023-01-24)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2019-12-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely assessments were completed and adequate interventions were implemented to prevent the development of three unstageable pressure ulcers for Resident #55. Actual Harm occurred on 12/05/19 when Resident #55, who was bedfast and required extensive assistance to total dependence on staff for activity of daily living care, including bed mobility and transfers developed unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough [yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue] and/or eschar [tan brown or black tissue] in the wound bed) pressure ulcers to the right heel, left heel and coccyx. This affected one Resident (#55) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three current residents with pressure ulcers. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus without complications,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-17 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #67, #189 and #196 were provided with showers as scheduled. This finding affected three residents (#67, #189 and #196) of five residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 85. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #189 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including encounter for orthopedic aftercare following a surgical amputation, diabetes, and generalized weakness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #189 exhibited moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for showers/bathing. Review of the activities of daily living (ADL) care plans revealed an intervention dated 03/25/25 for shower/bathing, and Resident #189 was totally dependent on staff. Review of the shower schedules revealed Resident #189 was scheduled for showers Sunday and Thursday during the nightshift. Review of the Documentation Survey…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-17 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
    Provide 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 record review, observations, interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed and dated and oxygen was set to the ordered liter flow per minute. This affected five residents (#1, #5, #8, #61, and #65) out of eight residents reviewed for oxygen. The facility census was 85. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 09/03/24. Diagnoses included epilepsy, chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic diastolic congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #1's Minimal Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. He required setup or clean up assistance with eating and dressing. He was independent with bed mobility, and required supervision or touching assistance with showers, toileting, and personal hygiene. Review of the Care Plan dated 04/09/25 revealed Resident #1 had COPD and chronic respiratory…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff knocked on Resident #21's room door and/or asked permission to enter the resident's room prior to entering. This affected one resident (#21) of one resident reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 85. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #21 revealed an admission date of 02/07/2024 with diagnoses including epilepsy, respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, depression, and personal history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits. Observation on 04/16/25 at 8:27 A.M. revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #500 walked into Resident #21's without knocking on the door or asking permission to enter the room. Interview with Resident #21 on 04/15/25 at 9:03 A.M. revealed staff does not respect his privacy. They just walk into the room without knocking or asking permission.…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-01-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for all residents. This affected one (Resident #36) of 10 residents observed for activities and staff interaction. The census was 66. Findings Include: Review of medical record revealed Resident #36 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, history of falls, and anxiety disorder. Resident #36 was receiving hospice services. Review of the plan of care dated 08/17/21 revealed Resident #36 was at risk for falls due to balance problems, history of falls and weakness. Review of the plan of care dated 12/09/22 revealed Resident #36 had a self-care deficit and required assistance by staff for activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the 01/16/23 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #36 revealed she had severe cognitive impairment. Observation on 01/18/23 from 10:03 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #36 dressed in street clothes seated in a Broda (geriatric) chair…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2019-12-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility did not ensure foods were served at palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except for one Resident (#35) who did receive food by mouth. The facility census was 77. Findings included: Resident interviews were conducted on 12/15/19 from 9:06 A.M. to 12:45 P.M. with Residents #25, #27, #39, #45 and #52. The residents consistently reported that hot foods were not hot and it could be at any meal the food was not hot. Resident #52 said she expected to get cold eggs when they were ordered. Resident #45 shared he did not eat a full meal a lot of times due to the hot foods being too cool, and he had lost weight. Resident #39 said the longer the trays sit in the hall waiting to get passed the colder the food was to him. Record review was conducted of the Food Committee Meeting Minutes dated 06/2019 which indicated foods were served at the proper temperature based on the floor staffing. On 09/19/19 the minutes reflected foods were served at the proper temperatures most of the time,…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0559 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of room changes to Resident #29 prior to conducting the room changes. This affected one Resident (#29) of one resident reviewed for room changes and had the potential to affect all 77 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #10 and Resident #29 were free from physical abuse. This affected two residents (Residents #10 and #29) of three residents (Residents #10, #29 and #131) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscular dystrophy, weakness, and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/01/19 revealed Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan dated 06/26/19 revealed Resident #10 has a behavior problem related to bully-like, disrespectful behaviors towards other residents, and she tends to manipulate, and verbally express unsolicited, negative comments to peers. Record review revealed Resident #131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with dementia with behavioral disturbance, persistent mood…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement the policy and procedure for reporting alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Interventions…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Interventions included to keep his routine consistent,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a physical abuse incident involving Resident #10 and Resident #29. This affected two Residents (#10 and #29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18 with diagnoses including intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment and required staff supervision and set-up assistance with with activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Record…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) recommendations were incorporated into Resident #53's plan of care. This affected one (Resident #53) of two residents reviewed for PASRR status. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, a history of bullet to the brain with fragmentation, and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the PASRR determination from the Ohio Department of Mental Health dated 05/03/19 revealed Resident #53 was approved for a sixty day nursing facility stay to expire on 07/02/19, and that any further stay beyond sixty days would require a new PASRR request and subsequent approval by the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Review of the PASRR determination from the State Department of Mental Health revealed Resident #53 had a history of serious mental illness and noted a…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a valid Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) was in place for Resident #53. This affected one (Resident #53) of two residents reviewed for PASRR status. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, a history of bullet to the brain with fragmentation, and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the PASRR determination from the Ohio Department of Mental Health dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was approved for a sixty day nursing facility stay to expire on [DATE], and that any further stay beyond sixty days would require a new PASRR request and subsequent approval by the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence a new PASRR was submitted for approval to the State agency prior to admission on [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 4:36 P.M. with Social Worker #376 verified…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 had a current discharge plan of care and failed to have documented evidence of care plan meetings. This affected one (Resident #52) of two (Residents #52 and #79) reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 02/02/19. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes, difficulty in walking, acute embolism and thrombosis of left lower extremity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/03/19, revealed the resident required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of two people was needed for transfers. Supervision was needed for locomotion in a wheelchair. Review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/11/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the care plans for Resident #52 revealed there was no discharge plan in…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 was wearing a wander/elopement alarm per physician's order. This affected one (Resident #52) of two (Residents #52 and #8) reviewed for wandering/elopement. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 02/02/19. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes, difficulty in walking, acute embolism and thrombosis of left lower extremity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/03/19, revealed the resident required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of two people was needed for transfers. Supervision was needed for locomotion in a wheelchair. A wander/elopement alarm was used daily. Review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/11/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the Wandering Observation Tool dated 10/15/19 revealed the resident was at risk for elopement. Review of the plan of…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to COMMUNICARE HEALTH — 110 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.7+1.3 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 52.6-1.6 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.5+0.5 vs chain
The other 109 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Allen View Healthcare CenterSpringfield, OH 1 of 5Annandale Healthcare CenterAnnandale, VA 1 of 5Canfield Healthcare CenterYoungstown, OH 1 of 5Dixon Healthcare CenterWintersville, OH 1 of 5Holbrook Healthcare CenterBuckhannon, WV 1 of 5Mount Vernon Healthcare CenterAlexandria, VA 1 of 5Southwood Healthcare CenterTerre Haute, IN 1 of 5Summers Healthcare CenterHinton, WV 1 of 5Valley View Healthcare CenterElkhart, IN 2 of 5Allison Pointe Healthcare CenterIndianapolis, IN 2 of 5Battlefield Park Healthcare CenterPetersburg, VA 2 of 5Beckley Healthcare CenterBeckley, WV 2 of 5Belmont Healthcare CenterBelmont, WV 2 of 5Berkeley Springs Healthcare CenterBerkeley Springs, WV 2 of 5Cedars Healthcare CenterCharlottesville, VA 2 of 5Columbus Healthcare CenterColumbus, OH 2 of 5Crestwood Care CenterShelby, OH 2 of 5Cumberland Healthcare CenterCumberland, MD 2 of 5Eagle Pointe Healthcare CenterParkersburg, WV 2 of 5Ellicott City Healthcare CenterEllicott City, MD 2 of 5Evergreen Crossing And The LoftsIndianapolis, IN 2 of 5Grande Pointe Healthcare CommuRichmond Heights, OH 2 of 5Great Lakes Healthcare CenterDyer, IN 2 of 5Greenbrier Health CenterParma Heights, OH 2 of 5Hagerstown Healthcare CenterHagerstown, MD 2 of 5Hanover Healthcare CenterMassillon, OH 2 of 5Holly Hill Healthcare CenterTowson, MD 2 of 5Keyser Healthcare CenterKeyser, WV 2 of 5Mercer Healthcare CenterBluefield, WV 2 of 5Morgantown Healthcare CenterMorgantown, WV 2 of 5Mount Airy Nursing and Rehab CenterMount Airy, MD 2 of 5Petersburg Healthcare CenterPetersburg, VA 2 of 5Riverside Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterDayton, OH 2 of 5Rolling Hills Healthcare CenterNew Albany, IN 2 of 5Salem West Healthcare CenterSalem, OH 2 of 5Wedgewood Healthcare CenterClarksville, IN 2 of 5Westminster Rehabilitation and Wellness CenterWestminster, MD 2 of 5Wildwood Healthcare CenterIndianapolis, IN 2 of 5Worthington Healthcare CenterParkersburg, WV 2 of 5Wyant Woods Healthcare CenterAkron, OH

Showing 40 of 109; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CONSOLIDATED OP CO., LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 05/01/2020
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/01/2020
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/01/2020
NE BAKER HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 05/01/2020
ROMEO, DOMINICIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2023
STOLTZ, CHARLESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2008
WILHEIM, RONALDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2008
WATER MANAGEMENT CO LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
COLLIER, RYANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2024
DREBOTY CERIMELE, DARIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/06/2013
GROVES, DONNAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/14/2023
ODENTHAL, RICHARDIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2025
C.R. STOLTZ IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
CHARD ASSET OWNERSHIP, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
CONSOLIDATED CAP CO., LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2020
I. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
R.S. WILHEIM IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
RONALD S WILHEIM 2012 SPOUSAL TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
ROSEDALE FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
RRW, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
S.L. ROSEDALE IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008
WILHEIM FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2008

CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

15 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.

$7.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-12.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.5M
Related-party expense19% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 68%Medicare 2%Other / private 30%

This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$322per resident / day
operating cost
$9,784per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$287per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

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 365711. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-17, 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.

What to do next