Alois Alzheimer's Care Center
70 Damon Road, Cincinnati, OH 45218 · For profit - Corporation · 93 certified beds · (513) 605-1000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- about 23% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 3.5% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.3% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.8% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 45.8% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
37.5% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 37.5%CMS range 26.7–56.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 6.8–19.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 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 | 1.07 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 93 beds and averages 86.3 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility to ensure insulin was properly stored. This affected four (Residents #5, #12, #15, #61) of eight residents observed for insulin storage. The facility also failed to discard expired tuberculosis (TB) testing solution. This had to potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 77 residents. Findings include: 1.Observation on [DATE] at 4:37 P.M with Registered Nurse (RN) #230 revealed the Woods unit medication cart contained the following: a vial of insulin glargine for Resident #12 with an open date of [DATE], a vial of insulin aspart for Resident #12 with an open date of [DATE], an open vial of NovoLog insulin for Resident #61 with no open date, a vial of insulin lispro for Resident #15 with an open date of [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 4:38 P.M with RN #230 confirmed the expired insulin for Residents #12and #15 should have been discarded. RN #320 further confirmed the insulin for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-18 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 77 residents.Findings include:1.Observation on 09/15/25 at 9:06 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #372 of the kitchen revealed the dry storage area contained the following items: a box of baking soda open to air with an expiration date of January 2025, an open and undated two-quart container of soy sauce, an open and undated open 64 ounce bottle of syrup, an open and undated bag of breadcrumbs. Interview on 09/15/25 at 9:09 A.M. with DM #372 confirmed the expired, open, and undated items in the dry storage should have been discarded. 2.Observation on 09/15/25 at 9:15 A.M. with DM #372 revealed the walk-in freezer contained the following items: a box of open pie dough with ice crystals over much of the pie dough, a box of pretzel dough open to air, a bag of open and undated beef patties, a bag of open and undated…
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 · E2025-09-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure hazardous materials were stored safely. This had the potential to affect 14 facility-identified (Residents #13, #19, #26, #32, #33, #35, #37, #47, #54, #62, #63, #73, #75, and #76) who were cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 77 residents.Findings include:1.Observation on 09/15/25 at 10:24 A.M. of the Terrace unit dining room revealed there was a unsecured container of Micro-Kill Two Germicidal Wipes sitting on the countertop near a sink. There was a bottle of Virex TB Disinfectant in an unsecured cabinet above the countertop. Both containers had warning labels indicating the contents could be hazardous to humans. Interview on 09/15/25 at 10:27 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager #230 verified the wipes and disinfectant should have been stored in a secure location. 2. Observation on 09/15/25 at 10:35 A.M. of the Gardens unit revealed a bottle of TB-CIDE QUAT and a bottle of Virex TB…
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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) assessment were completed accurately. This affected three (Residents #6, #25, #60) of six residents reviewed for PASARR completion. The facility census was 77 residents. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 12/04/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, nontraumatic acute subdural hemorrhage, and major depressive disorder. Review of the PASARR for Resident #6 dated 12/04/22 revealed the resident's diagnosis of major depressive disorder and the resident's order for Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) were not included in the PASARR. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #6 dated 07/14/25 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs.) Interview on 09/18/25 at 11:52 A.M with Social Service Director (SSD) #434 confirmed Resident #6's diagnosis of major depressive disorder 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 · D2023-09-06 · 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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a Resident, a Resident's Representative, and the Office of the Long-term Care Ombudsman with an emergency discharge notice. This affected one resident (#91) out of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 68. Findings Include: Record review for Resident #91 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and was not permitted to return to the facility. The resident's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, symbolic dysfunction, and essential primary hypertension. Further record review revealed the facility failed to issue an emergency discharge notice to Resident #91, Resident #91's representative, or the Office of Long-term Care Ombudsman office in writing. Review of hospital notes dated 07/06/23 for Resident #91 and identified by the facility as part of their admission paperwork, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-06 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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, hospital records review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility following a hospital evaluation. This affected one resident (#91) out of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 68. Findings Include: Record review for Resident #91 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and was not permitted to return to the facility. The resident's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, symbolic dysfunction, and essential primary hypertension. Review of the Discharge Return Not Anticipated (DRNA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment 3.0 dated 07/11/23 for Resident #91, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The assessment revealed Resident # 91 displayed behaviors towards another person. Review of the progress note dated 07/11/23 for Resident #91, revealed the Social Service…
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 · D2022-09-22 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident call lights were in reach. This affected two Residents (#47 and #48) out of 24 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of the Resident #47's chart revealed Resident #47 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, personal history of Coronavirus (COVID-19), insomnia, need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness, type two diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, hypothyroidism, delusional disorders, pain in left hip, pain in left shoulder, disease of pancreas and transient cerebral ischemic attack. Review of Resident #47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident to be moderately cognitively impaired and Resident #47 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and dressing. Resident #47 also required supervision with eating 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 · D2022-09-22 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being 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 record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan for pressure ulcers. This affected one Resident (#199) out of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. Facility census was 51. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #199 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage three, anxiety disorder, and malignant neoplasms prostate, bone, right lung, large intestine, and rectum. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had impaired cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99. This resident was assessed to require supervision with transfers and toileting independent with dressing and eating, and one-person physical assistance with bathing. Review of the baseline care plan dated 09/15/22 revealed Resident #199 did not have a care plan in place for stage two pressure ulcer…
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 · D2022-09-22 · 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 observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident mobility and fall care plans were implemented. This affected two Residents (#47 and #48) out of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of the Resident #47's chart revealed Resident #47 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, personal history of Coronavirus (COVID-19), insomnia, need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness, type two diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, hypothyroidism, delusional disorders, pain in left hip, pain in left shoulder, disease of pancreas and transient cerebral ischemic attack. Review of Resident #47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident to be moderately cognitively impaired and Resident #47 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and dressing. Resident #47 also required…
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 · D2022-09-22 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed by the physician in a timely manner. This affected three Residents (#3, #17 and #47) out of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of the Resident #17's chart revealed Resident #17 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, thyroid disorders, personal history of Coronavirus (COVID-19), dysphagia, anxiety disorder, hypokalemia, acute recurrent sinusitis, dizziness and giddiness, and benign neoplasm of prostate. Review of Resident #17's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident to be severely cognitively impaired and Resident #17 required limited assistance with bed mobility, and toileting. Resident #17 required supervision with transfers, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #17's pharmacy recommendation dated…
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 · D2022-09-22 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 ensure a resident that received psychotropic medications had an appropriate diagnosis and indications for use. This affected one Resident (#104) out of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Review of the Resident #104's chart revealed Resident #104 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease with late onset, need for assistance with personal care, chronic kidney disease stage three, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, unspecified convulsions, and anemia in chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #104's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was not completed due to Resident #104 being newly admitted to the facility. Review of Resident #104's admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #104 was severely cognitively impaired, 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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 366489. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, 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.