Bridgetown Nursing And Rehabilitation Centre
4307 Bridgetown Road, Cheviot, OH 45211 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 55 certified beds · (513) 598-8000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.3% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.2% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.9% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 14.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.3% | 8.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 55 beds and averages 43.5 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
32 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-01 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, review of hospital documentation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure admission medication orders were processed in a timely manner. This affected one (#80) of three residents reviewed for medication orders. The facility census was 43.Findings Include:Record review for Resident #80 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 06/12/26 with diagnoses including tracheostomy status, unspecified epilepsy, and unspecified convulsions. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #80 had impaired cognition and was assessed to be dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of Resident #80's hospital Discharge summary dated on 06/04/26 revealed the resident was to begin taking lacosamide, a medication to treat seizures, 10 milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL) with instructions for 20 mL (200 mg total) in the morning and 20 mL (200 mg total) before bedtime. The resident was also to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff wore the proper personal protection equipment (PPE) while providing care to residents in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). This affected one (Resident #17) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 03/11/25 with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure, depression, anxiety, history of infectious and parasitic diseases, and gastrostomy status. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #17 dated 12/16/25 revealed the resident had severe cognitive deficits, required substantial assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #17 revealed an order dated 03/12/25 for EBP related to gastrostomy tube and tracheostomy. Observation on 03/02/26 at 1:18 P.M. of incontinence care for Resident #17 per Certified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-04 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of job description, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient qualified nursing staff available to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. This directly affected seventeen residents (#1, #3, #11, #14, #17, #19, #20, #22, #26, #28, #29, #30, #32, #33, #36, #37, and #38) and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 41.Medical record review for seventeen residents (#1, #3, #11, #14, #17, #19, #20, #22, #26, #28, #29, #30, #32, #33, #36, #37, and #38) revealed their Minimum Data Set assessments were not submitted timely. Interview on 09/02/25 at 2:00 P.M., with the Administrator in Training (AIT) #102 verified he had previously been the Director of Nursing (DON) for the building but was now the AIT. He stated he still helped out the acting Director of Nursing (DON) with her duties, as she was still the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse and the Infection Control Preventionist…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-04 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide meals that were attractive and appetizing. This affected three Residents (#03, #05, and #20,) however, it had the potential to affect all 36 residents who receive food at the facility. The facility identified five Residents (#08, #15, #30, #33, and #45) who do not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 41. Findings include:1. Medical record review for Resident #03 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included, essential primary hypertension, emphysema, interstitial pulmonary disease, traumatic arthropathy, chronic fatigue, diabetes mellitus (DM), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic fatigue, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and bipolar disorder.Review of Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) for Resident #03 dated 04/10/25 revealed he was cognitively intact. Resident #03 required set up assistance from staff with meals. Interview on 09/02/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a maintain, store, and prepare food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents at the facility, who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified five Residents (#08, #15, #30, #33, and #45) who do not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Observation on 09/02/25 at 9:01 A.M., with the facility Administrator during the initial tour of the kitchen revealed the lights over the food preparation and steam table areas had multiple unknown brown items with legs attached inside the light. The ceiling fans had black fuzzy substance and debris all over them hanging over the food preparation area. The facility coffee pot was identified on the food preparation table with an electric socket hanging out from the wall and dry wall was observed in a pile around the back side of the coffee pot on the counter. Observation of the wall as you walk into…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff doffed personal protection equipment (PPE) appropriately, failed to perform hand hygiene after providing direct care, and failed to ensure there was a proper receptacle for disposing of PPE for residents in Enhanced Barrier Precautions. This affected one (#8) of 14 residents sampled for infection control. The census was 41.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, recurrent major depressive disorder, and aphasia following cerebral infarction. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 had severely impaired cognition, had physical behaviors, did not wander, and occasionally rejected care. Review of care plan dated 09/02/25 revealed Resident #8 required tube feeding. Interventions included elevating head of bed during and following feeds, checking residual volume and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-04 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, pest control contract review, and policy review, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program for the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all residents at the facility. The facility census was 41. Findings include:Observation during the tour of the kitchen on 09/02/25 at 9:01 A.M., with the facility Administrator revealed the lights over the food preparation and steam table area had multiple unknown brown items that appeared to be bugs. The dry food storage area had a soiled floor with food crumbs and debris scattered under the metal shelf with spider webs and cobs webs in the corners of the metal shelf. An observation of dirt, debris, food crumbs, liquid stains, along with dead bugs and live spiders were identified in between and under the shelves of dry food.Interview on 09/02/25 at 9:01 A.M., with the Administrator, during the initial tour of the kitchen, confirmed the lights over the food preparation area and steam table area had multiple brown items and the brown items scattered throughout the kitchen fluorescent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-04 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed in a timely manner. This affected seventeen (#1, #3, #11, #14, #17, #19, #20, #22, #26, #28, #29, #30, #32, #33, #36, #37, and #38) of seventeen residents reviewed for resident assessments. The facility census was 41.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified vascular dementia, combined heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 had an annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment created on 06/12/25 that was In progress and had not been submitted. There was a note written in red letters which indicated the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) for the fourth quarter date 06/13/25 was 69 days overdue and the ARD for 07/03/25 was 49 days overdue. 2. Review of the medical record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary homelike environment. This affected two (#01, #05) out of two residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 41. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #01 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (AFIB), sepsis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), primary generalized arthritis, vascular dementia, anxiety, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and bipolar disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had impaired cognition. Resident #01 was dependent on staff for medication administration, toilet use, bathing, and personal hygiene. He required maximum assistance from staff with oral hygiene. He required supervision from staff regarding eating. Observation on 09/04/25 at 12:16 P.M., revealed Resident #01's room had a privacy curtain that had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notification to a resident upon discharge to the hospital. This affected one (#20) out of two residents reviewed for discharge to the hospital. The facility census was 41. Finding include: Medical record review for Resident #20 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: sepsis, intestinal obstruction, cellulitis, acute kidney failure, lymphedema, absence of left leg above ankle, urinary tract infection, anemia, supraventricular tachycardia, and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 was cognitively intact. Resident #20 was dependent on staff for medication administration and toilet use. She required moderate assistance form staff with bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, and toilet use. Resident #20 required set up assistance from staff with eating and oral hygiene. Review of Resident of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to properly assess a resident's Pre admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) screen. The facility failed to identify a mental health diagnosis. This affected one (#03) out of four residents reviewed for PASARR screening. The facility census was 41. Findings include:Medical record review for Resident #03 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included, essential primary hypertension, emphysema, interstitial pulmonary disease, traumatic arthropathy, chronic fatigue, diabetes mellitus (DM), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, chronic fatigue, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and bipolar disorder. Review of Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) for Resident #03 dated 04/10/25 revealed he was cognitively intact. Resident #03 was dependent on staff for medication administration. Resident #03 required set up assistance from staff with meal set up, oral hygiene, and upper body dressing. Resident #03…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had complete and accurate comprehensive care plans. This affected three (#1, #3 and #44) of fourteen residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 41.Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #01 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (AFIB), sepsis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), primary generalized arthritis, vascular dementia, anxiety, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and bipolar disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had impaired cognition. Resident #03 was dependent on staff for medication administration, toilet use, bathing, and personal hygiene. He required maximum assistance from staff with oral hygiene. He required supervision from staff with eating. Review of the care plans for Resident #01 revealed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care conferences and revise care plans as needed. This affected two (#05 and #44) of fourteen residents sampled for care plans. The census was 41.Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #05 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included bipolar disorder, obesity, diabetes mellitus (DM), anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. Resident #05 was dependent on staff for medication administration, she required set up assistance from staff for meals, oral hygiene, toilet use, dressing and personal hygiene. Review of the progress for Resident #05 dated 05/29/25 revealed Resident #05 reported she rolled out of bed the previous Saturday (05/24/25). Resident #05 reported to the nurse she slipped when…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were wearing physician ordered splint devices. This affected one (#16) of one residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility census was 41.Findings include:Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/07/24, with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease and supraventricular tachycardia. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment and occasionally refused care. Review of physician orders dated 05/25/25 for a left resting hand splint to be applied in A.M. and check skin integrity every shift. Review of care plan dated 06/05/25 for the left wrist splint, to check skin every shift upon don and doff for signs and symptoms of skin break down. Review of care plan revealed no indication of refusal of care. Observation on 09/02/25 at 9:30 A.M. revealed Resident #16 did not have left hand splint. Observation on 09/02/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a significant change in the resident's care and treatment. This affected one (Resident #34) of three residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The census was 42. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE] with presence of prosthetic heart valve, cerebral infarction with left sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia, atrial fibrillation, and obesity. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had moderate cognitive impairment and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident required supervision with eating, maximal assistance with oral hygiene and was dependent for toileting, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, bed mobility, and transfers. Review of the physician orders for Resident #34 revealed that on 06/17/24, Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1001…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete comprehensive care plans on residents. This affected two (#14 and #15) residents of the four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 39. Findings include: 1) Review of medical record for Resident #14 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, breast cancer, kidney failure, atrial fibrillation, and acute cystitis. Review of the care plan for Resident #14 revealed there was no care plan related to the resident's skin integrity and the Stage II pressure injury. Observation of wound care for Resident #14 on 04/15/24 11:34 A.M. provided by Wound Care Physician #53, revealed the resident had a stage two pressure ulcer on the right buttock that was being debrided. Interview with Wound Care Doctor #53 at the same time, verified the resident had a stage two pressure ulcer on her right buttock. Interview with Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #51 on 04/16/24 at 11:15…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, staff interview, review of online resources from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow infection control procedures during dressing changes. This affected one (#14) resident of the three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 39. Findings include: Record review for Resident #14 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to breast cancer, kidney failure, atrial fibrillation, and acute cystitis. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 had moderately impaired cognition. Observation of would care/dressing change for Resident #14 on 04/15/24 11:34 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #54 and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #55 revealed LPN #54 removed a soiled incontinence brief and replaced it with a clean one. LPN #54 then cleansed the open wound on Resident #14's right buttock with saline and gauze. LPN #54…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-05-19 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to notify residents in advance of menu changes. This had the potential to affect 37 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 38. Findings include: During observation on 05/16/22 at 12:10 P.M., the menu posted in the kitchen listed the lunch meal as baked veal cutlet, creamy dill sauce, bow tie pasta, roasted brussels sprouts, wheat dinner roll or bread, and blushing pears. Concurrent observation of the tray line revealed residents were served a cheeseburger, french fries, and fruit. During interview on 05/16/22 at 12:15 P.M., Dietary Manager (DM) #40 stated the residents do not like veal, so she normally serves them country fried steak, which she was not able to get, so she served burgers today. When questioned, DM #40 stated the residents had not been notified of the menu change prior to the meal and further stated the menus posted on the resident units were not current. DM #40 stated some residents call the kitchen each day to find out what they are getting and she lets them know at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-05-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a manner to prevent the potential spread of food borne illness and failed to ensure kitchen equipment and fixtures were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 37 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 38. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/16/22 at 9:15 A.M., the walk-in refrigerator revealed a carton of pasta salad open to air and unsealed; another carton of pasta salad wrapped in plastic wrap and dated 05/05/22; seven muffins in a box, loosely covered, open to air, and not dated; a gallon Ziploc bag of american cheese slices unzipped and open to air; a box of donut holes unlabeled, not dated, and open to air; and a gallon Ziploc back of turkey lunch meat not labeled and not dated. Observation of the freezer revealed a bag of frozen cookies which was open to air and not labeled or dated and a box of frozen hamburger patties which was open to air. Observation of the dry storage area revealed a package 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.
- Potential for harm · E2019-04-11 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview and review of facility surety bond, the facility failed to ensure the surety bond was sufficient to cover the balance of resident funds accounts. This affected 26 Residents (#3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #13, #14, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #26, #27, #28, #30, #31, #32, #34, #37, #39, #41, #52, #305) whom had personal funds managed by the facility. The census was 55. Findings include: Review of personal trust account balances for Residents #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #13, #14, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #26, #27, #28, #30, #31, #32, #34, #37, #39, #41, #52, #305 revealed a total balance of all accounts as $10,879.33. Review of facility surety bond dated 08/09/12 revealed a policy term of 06/01/12 to 06/01/13 with a bond limit of $10,000.00. Interview on 04/11/19 at 4:06 P.M. with the Administrator reported the surety bond was active and renewed automatically every year. The Administrator acknowledged the surety bond limit was $10,000.00 and the resident accounts exceeded this amount.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-11 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely notifiy each resident's physician when there was a significant change in their physical status. This affected two residents (#15, #14) of five reviewed for nutrition.The facility census was 55. Findings include: 1. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including adult failure to thrive, altered mental status, syncope and collapse, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #15's quarterly minimum data set (MDS 3.0) dated 01/29/19, identified the resident as having poor short and long term memory, having severely impaired cognitive skills, and requiring the extensive assistance of one staff person to eat. The resident's height was 66 inches and weight was 148 pounds at the time of the assessment. Resident #15 was identified as having weight loss at that time, and not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Resident #15's current plan of care for being at nutritional risk…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage was provided timely. This affected two (#55 and #304) of three residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification. The census was 55. Findings include: 1. Review of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage revealed Resident #55 was provided written notice on 01/09/19 of therapy services ending on 01/10/19. 2. Review of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage revealed Resident #304 was provided written notice on 03/23/19 of therapy services ending on 03/24/19. Interview on 04/11/19 at 4:21 P.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #58 verified notice of Medicare Non-Coverage were provided to Residents #55 and #304 only a day prior, not 48 hours prior, to the end of therapy services.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure privacy for a resident. This affected one (Resident #7) of two residents reviewed for privacy. The facility census 55. Findings Include : Record review for Resident #7 revealed diagnoses including diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression. The most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated on 01/17/19 revealed the resident had no cognitive impairments and required minimal assistance of one with all care needs. The most recent Activities of Daily Living (ADL) plan of care revealed the resident needed minimal assistance and set up for hygiene. Observation during an interview on 04/09/19 at 3:00 P.M. revealed the resident had a private room. No privacy curtain was noted. When the door was opened you could see the resident from the hall way. While conducting the interview, Office employee (OE) #70 and the foot doctor entered the resident's room with out knocking. OE #70 confirmed she should have knocked before entering. Interview on 04/09/19 at 3:00 P.M. revealed Resident #7 noted she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided with a homelike environment in which their personal belongings were kept in a clean and orderly manner. This affected one resident (#16) of twenty-one resident's current resident's reviewed. Findings include: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral palsy, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety disorder, and abnormal posture. The facility completed a quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment of the Resident #16's cognitive and physical functional abilities dated 01/29/19. The 01/29/19 assessment identified the resident as having good memory, orientation, and recall, and requiring the physical assistance of at least one staff person for bed mobility, transferring, and dressing. The resident did not walk and accessed her environment in a special motorized wheel chair. The resident was interviewed, and observed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-11 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a written notice including reasons for transfer/discharge and appeal rights was provided to the resident, resident's representative, and ombudsman prior to transfer/discharge. This affected one resident (#56) of one resident reviewed for Hospitalization. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, atrial fibrillation, generalized anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive, and anemia due to anti-neoplastic chemotherapy. Review of the Resident #56's nursing progress notes revealed the resident was sent out to the hospital on [DATE] due to a change in her condition. On 02/24/19 at 1:33 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #52 documented the resident stated she was not feeling very well today. LPN #52 took and recorded the resident's vital signs which indicated the Resident #56's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident received daily care. This affected one (#30) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 55. Findings Include : Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed diagnoses including seizure disorder, anxiety, depression and parkinsons. Review of Resident #30's most recent annual Minimum data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one with her care. The MDS also noted the resident was incontinent of urine and had a colostomy. Review of the plan of care for activities of daily living notes the resident needed assistance with her colostomy daily and had behaviors of removing her colostomy bag. Observation of the resident on 04/09/19 at 3:05 P.M., revealed the residents hair was uncombed. The resident's clothes were soiled with brown liquid, her teeth were caked with food and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care for each resident consistent with physicians orders. This affected one (#35) of one resident reviewed for Respiratory Care, and one (#4) of two residents reviewed for Edema. The facility census was 55. Findings include: 1. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, infection and inflammatory reactions, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertensive heart disease, atrial fibrillation, breakdown of cystostomy catheter, and dementia. The facility completed an admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment of Resident #35 dated 03/15/19. The 03/15/19 assessment identified the resident as having severely impaired memory and recall, and shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting at resident and when lying flat. The assessment also identified the resident as receiving oxygen therapy while a resident. Review of Resident #35's admission and current physician's orders…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure to timely address a resident's significant weight loss. This affected two (Resident #15 and Resident #14) of five residents reviewed for Nutrition. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including adult failure to thrive, altered mental status, syncope and collapse, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #15's quarterly minimum data set (MDS 3.0) dated 01/29/19, identified the resident as having poor short and long term memory, having severely impaired cognitive skills, and requiring the extensive assistance of one staff person to eat. The resident's height was 66 inches and weight was 148 pounds at the time of the assessment. Resident #15 was identified as having weight loss at that time, and not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Resident #15's current plan of care for being at nutritional risk revealed the plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-11 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to provide each resident with medically-related social services to assist in resolving roommate issues which impacted their psychosocial well-being. This affected two residents (#13, #39) of three reviewed for resident to resident interactions. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and abnormal posture. The facility completed a quarterly minimum data set assessment (MDS 3.0) of the resident's cognitive status dated 01/21/19. The 01/21/19 assessment identified the resident as having good memory, orientation, and recall. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including aphasia, hemiplegia, seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression. The facility completed a quarterly minimum data set (MDS 3.0) assessment of the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-09-04 · tag F0730 — widespreadObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of personnel files and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a performance review of Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) or annually. This had the potential to affect all 41 residents in the facility. The census was 41. Findings include: Review of personnel files revealed CNA #131 was hired on 09/08/08 and had no annual performance evaluation. Review of personnel files revealed CNA #136 was hired on 08/09/19 and had no annual performance evaluation. Interview with Administrator on 09/04/25 at 9:28 A.M. confirmed that no CNA evaluations were incomplete.
- No harm found · Bcited before2022-05-19 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 and interview, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of a resident's discharge from the facility. This affected two (Residents #2 and #41) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 38. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the progress notes revealed Resident #2 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She was sent to the hospital again on 04/19/22 and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence of the Ombudsman being notified of Resident #2 transferring to the hospital on [DATE] and 04/19/22. 2. Review of the medical record of Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 04/28/21. The resident was hospitalized [DATE]-[DATE], 11/30/21-12/06/21, 03/03/21-03/05/21, and 03/22/22-03/25/22. Further review of the medical record revealed no evidence of the ombudsman being notified of Resident #41 transferring to the hospital on [DATE], 11/30/21,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2022-05-19 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice to a resident 24-hours of transferring to the hospital. This affected two (Residents #2 and #41) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 38. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the progress notes revealed Resident #2 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She was sent to the hospital again on 04/19/22 and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence the resident or her responsible party were provided a bed hold notice upon transferring to the hospital on [DATE] and 04/19/22. 2. Review of the medical record of Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 04/28/21. The resident was hospitalized [DATE]-[DATE], 11/30/21-12/06/21, 03/03/21-03/05/21, and 03/22/22-03/25/22. Further review of the medical record revealed no evidence of the ombudsman being notified of Resident #41…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOMMER, CAMERON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 49% | since 07/01/2019 |
| BOMMER, RONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 49% | since 06/11/2019 |
| LABAZZO, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| RIVERA, EMMANUEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 86% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365462. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-04, 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.