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

Chardon Woods

12340 Bass Lake Road, Chardon, OH 44024 · For profit - Corporation · 161 certified beds · (440) 285-4040 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (440) 285-4040 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited May 2025
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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2025
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 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 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
12460 Bass Lake Rd · (440) 214-3100 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
13207 Ravenna Road · (440) 285-6015 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Marc's3.1 mi
425 Water St · (440) 285-9088 · Call to confirm hours
Park
12641 Bass Lake Rd · (440) 286-9255 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
12686 Bass Lake Rd · (440) 286-1266

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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.

Overall rating3★
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 increased6.9%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.8%6.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%0.2%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.8%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms37.9%30.1%6.5%worse 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 injury5.1%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened6.9%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication37.5%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine99.2%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.8%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.2%21.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.3%8.8%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.6%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine70.6%75.6%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission23.5%24.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit17.7%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.571.731.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.391.801.80worse

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.

51.0% 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 137 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

51.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
60.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.16U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.06hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 60.0% 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 35 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 SNF51.0%CMS range 42.5–60.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 7.7–14.410.7%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 discharge60.0%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 discharge57.1%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 discharge42.9%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 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 stay1.8%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 worsened3.6%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 hospitalization6.8%CMS range 4.2–10.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 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

0.53
RN hours/ resident / day
1.29
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.73
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.55
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 161 beds and averages 133.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 28 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-01-16)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2022-10-06)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-22 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect Resident #6 from resident to resident abuse. This affected one resident (#6) of three residents reviewed for abuse prohibition. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Record review for Resident #6 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified intracranial injury, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was rarely or never understood. Review of a social worker note dated 04/01/25 revealed there had been an incident of Resident #6 being kissed by another resident (Resident #80) and Resident #6 did not respond when asked about being kissed by another resident. Review of the initial physician assessment, dated 04/01/25, revealed Resident #6 was being seen for the admission assessment. The incident regarding Resident #6 being kissed by another resident was not noted in this assessment, and there were no…

    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 · E2025-01-16 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility did not provide structured and routine activities on the memory care unit as scheduled. This affected all 27 residents (#1, #10, #11, #31, #32, #35, #37, #41, #42, #45, #54, #59, #62, #63, #74, #76, #77, #79, #83, #87, #90, #91, #92, #93, #99, #103, #108) that resided on the memory care unit. The facility census was 99. Findings include: Review of the activities calendar for January 2024 through November 2024 revealed no concerns with the scheduled activities; however, there was no activity calendar specific to the residents residing on the memory care unit. Review of the December 2024 activity calendar revealed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays only one activity was listed for the day between 10:30 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. and there were no activities after 3:00 PM on Saturdays. Review of the January 2025 activity calendar revealed there was no activity calendar specific to the residents residing on the memory care unit (unit G). The calendar reflected exercise took place on weekdays Monday through Friday at 11:00…

    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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives were able to participate in quarterly care plan conferences for Residents #10 and #62. This affected two residents (#10 and #62) of two resident records reviewed for participation in care planning. The facility census was 99. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #62's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/30/24. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and fracture of right ulna styloid process. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #62 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 meaning she was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #62 required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, transfers, and bed mobility, maximal assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. Review of the current care plan revealed Resident #62 was…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility did not ensure Resident #102 was offered to rinse his mouth after administration of steroidal (anti-inflammatory) based respiratory inhaler. This affected one resident (#102) out of one resident observed for respiratory inhaler use. This had the potential to affect eight residents (#2, #6, #19, #20, #33, #65, #82 and #102) identified by the facility with orders for respiratory inhalers. The facility census was 99. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #102 revealed an admission date of 11/06/24 with diagnoses including hypertension, allergic rhinitis, and congestive heart failure. Review of the care plan dated 11/18/24 revealed Resident #102 had altered health maintenance related to progressive physical and mental status including congestive heart failure. Interventions included administering medications as ordered and monitoring for signs of distress including respiratory symptoms. There was nothing in the care plan regarding rinsing the resident's mouth after…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    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

    Based on observations, record reviews, interviews and reviews of the facility policy revealed the facility did not ensure the Physician's Order and the Care Plan for the use of oxygen were in place for Resident #94. This affected one resident #94 out of four. This had the potential to affect 14 Resident's(#3, #14, #17, #20, #27, #44, #46, #48, #51, #65, #68, #70, #71, #100) that was identified by the facility utilizing oxygen. Findings Include: Review of medical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 06/26/24 and his diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia without behavioral or psychotic disturbance, heart failure, fluid overload, primary hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. Review of Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 12/16/24 revealed that in Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, Letter C1 Oxygen Therapy was marked that resident was not receiving oxygen therapy. Review of undated comprehensive care plan revealed Resident #94's care plan did show the focus, goals and interventions for oxygen use. Review of January,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility did not ensure medications were administered utilizing proper infection control standards including not touching medications with ungloved hands and hand hygiene between residents. This affected two residents (Resident #69 and #102) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 99. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #69 revealed an admission date of 05/16/23 with diagnoses including chronic kidney failure, pulmonary embolism, and protein-calorie malnutrition. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #102 revealed an admission date of 11/06/24 with diagnoses including hypertension, allergic rhinitis, and congestive heart failure. Observation on 01/14/25 at 8:37 A.M. revealed Resident Nurse (RN) #553 was preparing Resident #102's medications, and the following infection control issues were identified: • RN #533 reached into the ascorbic acid (vitamin C) bottle with her ungloved fingers to obtain two 500 milligram (mg)…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen and nursing unit refrigerators were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 117 of 127 residents as eleven residents (#2, #8, #17, #29, #68, #73, #85, #103, #104, #118, and #132) received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 127. Findings include: Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen on 10/03/22 from 9:05 A.M. through 9:20 A.M. with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #504 revealed a large white bin with a clear lid that was dirty with food splatter and the scoop was stored inside of the bin with the oatmeal. There was black, dirty scum-like substance dried on the floor under the prep table near the oatmeal bin and under the stove across from the prep table. On the prep table next to the stove there were three clear containers of scoops stored on the top shelf of this prep table that had various food crumbs on inside bottom. Observation of the ice machine had whitish drippings and blackish stains on the front, side, and back of it. Observation 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 staff properly wore personal protective equipment (PPE) while entering a resident room that was positive with COVID-19 and while in resident care areas. This had the potential to affect 46 residents (#2, #5, #8, #10, #17, #20, #21, #23, #27, #29, #33, #34, #36, #37, #39, #48, #50, #51, #53, #55, #59, #65, #66, #68, #71, #73, #75, #83, #85, #93, #103, #104, #105, #110, #116, #117, #118, #121, #125, #128, #129, #130, #131, #132, #133, and #378) who all resided on units C and D. The facility census was 127. Findings include: Observation on 10/03/22 at 11:18 A.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #507 sitting at nurses' station on unit C with no mask on face but wearing goggles. Observed in the common area near the nurse's station but greater than six feet were Residents #34 and #116. Interview at this time with LPN #507 verified the identified finding and stated she will put it on when around residents. Observation on 10/03/22 at 11:45 A.M. of State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #508 don a gown and gloves but…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-10-06 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
    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 all resident rooms had call lights in place. This affected two of ten residents on the secured G unit reviewed for accessible call lights (Resident #4 and #40). The total census was 127. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #40 revealed she was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, major depressive disorder, and unspecified psychosis. Review of her care plan revealed no mention of any prohibition against keeping a call light in the room. Observation of Resident #40's room on 10/03/22 at 9:36 A.M. revealed she had no bedside call light or cord either plugged into the bedside socket or visible elsewhere in the room. Observation of Resident #40 at this time revealed she was not interviewable. The surveyor confirmed the above observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #401 on 10/03/22 at 9:40 A.M. 2. Record review of Resident #4 revealed she was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia,…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the kitchenette on the G unit was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and in good repair to prevent contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect 30 residents (#3, #9, #10, #12, #22, #25, #30, #35, #37, #38, #39, #40, #50, #67, #69, #70, #73, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #85, #88, #92, #94, #113, #114, #118 and #123) of 142 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During a kitchen tour on 11/20/19 at 9:24 A.M. two kitchenette were observed on the G unit. The left side which contained higher room numbers had a toaster with loose debris and water mark type stains, the outside of the microwave had smears of food residue on the top and sides The counter tops in both kitchenettes were stained with multiple round brown and red stains and the finish on the top of the counter had worn away leaving an unclean surface. In addition, a refrigerator with a broken off door handle that left behind sharp broken hard plastic was also observed. The dish washing and storage area contained an ice…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure confidential medical information was maintained in a safe and secure manner. This affected one resident (#137) of one resident reviewed for privacy. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #137 revealed an admission date of 10/30/19 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, dementia, heart disease, mass and/or lump in neck, obstructive and reflux uropathy, anemia, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/06/19 revealed the resident exhibited cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)score of three. Interview on 11/18/19 at 10:54 A.M. with Resident #137's daughter revealed when she arrived to take her mother to a cardiologist appointment her packet of information was not available. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #269 told her it was given to the family that left earlier to another appointment. Resident #137's information was printed again and she left to the appointment with her mother.…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #118, who sustained significant weight loss, was cued to eat or offered a substitute during meals. This affected one resident (#118) of four residents reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depression and non-infective gastroenteritis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/17/19 revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and required the assistance of one staff for eating. The assessment also indicated the resident had a weight loss of 5% or more in one month and or a loss of 10% over six months. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 10/17/19 revealed the staff were to offer meal substitutes when foods were refused. Review off the physician's orders revealed the resident was ordered a regular diet, and supplements of fortified cereal (11/18/19), frozen nutritional treat…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

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 JOURNEY HEALTHCARE — 32 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 3 of 51.9+1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.3+1.7 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.5-0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
The other 31 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
1 of 5Calhoun Crossing Of Journey LLCCalhoun, GA 1 of 5Clifton HeightsLouisville, KY 1 of 5Crossroads of Flowery Branch of Journey LLC, TheFlowery Branch, GA 1 of 5Fairburn Heights Of Journey LLCFairburn, GA 1 of 5Jasper Point Of Journey LLCJasper, GA 1 of 5Jesup Ridge of Journey LLCJesup, GA 1 of 5Kirtland Woods Of JourneyKirtland, OH 1 of 5Morgantown Heights Of JourneyMorgantown, WV 1 of 5Murray Woods Of Journey LLCChatsworth, GA 1 of 5Reserve at Appling of Journey LLC, TheAppling, GA 1 of 5Stanford CrossingStanford, KY 1 of 5Stone Mountain Run Of Journey LLCStone Mountain, GA 1 of 5Thomasville Vistas of Journey LLCThomasville, GA 1 of 5Tucker Park Crossing of Journey LLCTucker, GA 2 of 5Crossings At East Lake Of Journey Llc, TheDecatur, GA 2 of 5Fort Valley Crossing of Journey LLCFort Valley, GA 2 of 5Frankfort TrailsFrankfort, KY 2 of 5Glasgow Hills Of JourneyGlasgow, WV 2 of 5Reserve at Fort Gaines of Journey LLC, TheFort Gaines, GA 2 of 5Warrenton Woods of Journey LLCWarrenton, GA 2 of 5Woods at Lumber City of Journey LLC, TheLumber City, GA 3 of 5Bainbridge Landing of Journey LLCBainbridge, GA 3 of 5Cartersville Crossing Of Journey LLCCartersville, GA 3 of 5Dublin Trails Of Journey LLCDublin, GA 3 of 5LaGrange Trails of Journey LLCLagrange, GA 3 of 5Riverside Valley Of JourneySaint Albans, WV 3 of 5Twin City Trails of Journey LLCTwin City, GA 3 of 5Vanceburg HillsVanceburg, KY 4 of 5Green River TrailsGreensburg, KY 4 of 5Roberta Trails of Journey LLCRoberta, GANot rated (Special Focus)Lyndon Crossing, LLCLouisville, KY

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
JOURNEY OHI OF OH LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 12/30/2024
JOURNEY OHI OH HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/30/2024
AKABAS, SAMUELIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/30/2024
MCGUINNESS, BERNARDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/30/2024
PALOMBARO, DEANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/04/2025
SCHINDLER, KAITLINIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/30/2024
MCGUINNESS, CATHERINEIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/24/2025
SEGALL, SASHAIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/24/2025
CHARDON OHIO PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/30/2024
RAZMJOUEI, KARIMIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 12/30/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

3 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.

$18.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.3M
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 25%Medicare 4%Other / private 71%

This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$397per resident / day
operating cost
$12,062per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$389per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 365800. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-16, 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