Carecore At Margaret Hall
1960 Madison Road, Cincinnati, OH 45206 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 99 certified beds · (513) 751-5880 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 citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — 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 (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (85%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 4 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 2.4% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.0% | 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 | 8.3% | 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 | 0.8% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.6% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.1% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 43.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
‡ 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.
43.5% 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 84 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 32.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 28 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 65% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 43.5%CMS range 35.3–54.8 | 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 | 11.5%CMS range 7.8–16.2 | 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 | 32.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 25.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 25.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 2.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.4–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 99 beds and averages 77.7 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 85% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-23 · 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 record review, review of hospital paperwork, staff interview, policy review and review of online medical resources, the facility failed to monitor and record resident bowel functioning. This resulted in Actual Harm for Resident #76 whose last documented bowel movement occurred on 11/19/25. Resident #76 was subsequently treated in the hospital for a fecal impaction on 01/25/26. This affected one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 78 residents. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #76 revealed an admission date of 02/06/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, dysphagia, depression, and mood disorder. Resident #76 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility.Review of the physician's orders for Resident #76 revealed an order dated 02/06/24 for milk of magnesia 30 milliliters (ml) via feeding tube every 24 hours as needed for constipation, and senna oral tablets 8.6 milligrams (mg) two tablets…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's resident representative of a change in condition or an injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type Two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status.Review of Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] 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 · Dcited before2026-04-13 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported to the state surveying agency. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for injury of unknown origins. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type Two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status.Review of Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was moderately…
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 before2026-04-13 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for injury of unknown origins. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type Two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status.Review of Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was moderately cognitively impaired and Resident #24…
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 before2026-04-13 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor a resident's swollen upper lip with dark purple discoloration as ordered by the Nurse Practitioner (NP). This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for monitoring resident conditions. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status.Review of Resident #24's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] 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 · F2026-02-23 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the facility menu and dietary spreadsheets, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed and portion sizes were served as planned on dietary spreadsheets. This had the potential to affect 76 residents in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents. Findings include: Review of the menu for 02/10/26 revealed residents on regular textured diets were to receive cereal, toast, and sausage egg bake.Review of the dietary spreadsheet for 02/10/26 revealed all diets were to receive six ounces of cereal. The type of cereal varied depending on the diet, with some diets specifying a specific hot cereal.Review of the dietary spreadsheet for 02/13/26, when scrambled eggs were on the menu, revealed all diets were to receive a #16 scoop (two ounces) of eggs.Observation on 02/10/26 at 8:10 A.M. revealed Dietary [NAME] (DC) #340 served food from the steam table for 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 · F2026-02-23 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at the appropriate temperature and was palatable. This had the potential to affect 76 of 78 residents in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.Findings include: Observation of a test tray on 02/10/26 at 9:33 A.M. after all trays had been passed revealed the eggs and sausage were lukewarm to taste and not palatable. The eggs were 93 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the sausage was 93.4 degrees F. The milk was poured from a carton which had been placed on top of the cart of trays into a glass was 48.8 degrees F and the orange juice was 51 degrees F. Interview on 02/10/26 at 9:34 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #345 confirmed he did not want to taste the food. DM #345 verified the eggs were 93 degrees F, sausage was 93.4 degrees F, milk was 48.8 degrees F, and the orange juice was 51 degrees F. DM #345 stated his expectation was for hot food to be at least 120…
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 · F2026-02-23 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hair restraints in the kitchen, failed to ensure staff washed their hands upon entering the kitchen and before handling food, and failed to ensure food was stored in a manner to protect against the potential spread of foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect 76 of 78 residents residing in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.Findings include: 1. Observation on 02/10/26 at 8:00 A.M revealed Dietary [NAME] (DC) #340 was standing at the stove preparing eggs and had a full beard that was approximately one-quarter of an inch in length. DC #340 was not wearing a facial beard restraint. Observation on 02/10/26 at 8:13 A.M. revealed Dietary Aid (DA) #350 was covering food prepared on the tray line and had facial hair on his chin that was approximately one inch in length. DA #350 was not wearing a facial beard restraint. Observation on 02/10/26 at 8:24 A.M. revealed Dietary…
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 · F2026-02-23 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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 kitchen staff had access to adequate handwashing facilities in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect 76 residents. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents. Findings include: Observation upon entry into the kitchen on 02/10/26 at 8:00 A.M. revealed Dietary [NAME] (DC) #340 was standing at the stove making scrambled eggs. The Surveyor attempted to wash hands at the hand-washing sink at the front of the kitchen, but the water did not flow. Interview on 02/10/26 at 8:01 A.M. with DC #340 confirmed the water did not work in the hand-washing sink and instructed the Surveyor to use the hand-washing sink in the back of the kitchen and stated that it was where he normally washed his hands. Observation on 02/10/26 at 8:02 A.M. revealed the Surveyor turned on the water at the hand-washing sink in the back of the kitchen, but there was no soap available by the sink. Interview on 02/10/26 at 8:02 A.M. with DC…
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 before2026-02-23 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate care was provided to residents. This affected two (Residents #28 and #77) of four residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 78 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #77 revealed an admission date of 05/03/23 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, type two diabetes mellitus, and spinal stenosis and a discharge date of 12/30/25. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #77 dated 10/31/25 revealed the resident had intact cognition and was dependent on staff for bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #77 revealed the resident was scheduled to receive showers on day shift on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Review of shower documentation for Resident #77 dated December 2025 revealed the resident received showers on 12/03/25, 12/06/25, 12/10/25, 12/17/25, and 12/20/25. There was no documentation of the resident receiving or refusing showers on the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate and updated. This affected three (Residents #76, #77, and #84) of four residents reviewed for documentation. The facility census was 78 residents.Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #77 revealed an admission date of 05/03/23 and diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's disease and spinal stenosis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #77 dated 10/31/25 revealed the resident had intact cognition and required setup/cleanup assistance with eating and substantial/maximal assistance for bed mobility and transfers and was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing. Review of the documentation survey report for Resident #77 dated 11/20/25 to 11/30/25 revealed there was no documentation regarding bed mobility, bladder continence, bowel continence/bowel movements, eating, dressing, hygiene, ambulation, transfers, wheelchair/scooter use,…
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 23 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-23 · 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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) while providing care to residents in Enhanced Barriers Precautions (EBP). This affected one (Resident #71) and had the potential to affect 13 facility-identified residents with orders for OBP. The facility census was 78 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for #71 revealed an admission date of 01/04/26 with diagnoses including encephalopathy, sleep apnea, heart failure, and severe sepsis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive deficits and required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Review of the physician's orders for Resident #71 revealed an order dated 01/07/26 for the resident to be in EBP due the presence of an enteral tube and wounds. Observation on 02/09/26 at 9:23 A.M. of medication administration per gastrostomy tube to Resident #71…
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 before2025-01-27 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure the phones were answered during the nighttime hours. This affected one (Resident #45) of three residents reviewed for communication with the staff via telephone. This had the potential to affect all of the residents. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 12/20/24 with diagnoses including arthritis, malnutrition, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #45 dated 12/32/24 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Review of the progress note for Resident #45 dated 12/31/25 timed at 11:13 A.M. per Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #102 revealed at around 5:45 A.M. the resident's family entered the facility with emergency medical technicians (EMT's) because they weren't able to get in touch with the facility via telephone. Resident #45 had called the family because he…
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 before2025-01-27 · 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
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record review for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 08/12/24 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of the care plan for Resident #36 dated 08/24/24 revealed the resident was at risk for urinary incontinence with the potential for impaired skin integrity. Interventions included the following: keep call light within reach and remind the resident to use it, check and change frequently and provide good peri-care, observe for signs and symptoms of restlessness which might indicate the need to void, offer assistance to the bathroom as needed. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #36 dated 01/03/25 revealed the resident was cognitively intact, required substantial staff assistance with…
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 before2025-01-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the appropriate level of supervision during resident transfers using the sit to stand lift. This affected one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 08/12/24 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of care plan for Resident #36 dated 08/14/24 revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to impaired mobility. The care plan had not been updated to reflect the use of a sit to stand lift for transferring the resident. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #36 dated 01/03/25 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required substantial/maximal assistance of staff for for toileting, bed mobility, and transfers. Review of the sit to stand assessment for Resident #36 dated 01/11/25 revealed therapy recommended 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 · D2025-01-27 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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, observation, staff interview, resident interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the temperature in resident rooms was satisfactory. This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for the physical environment. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 08/01/24 with diagnoses including [NAME] Syndrome, malnutrition, depression, respiratory disorder, and biliary cirrhosis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #43 dated 01/11/25 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Observation on 01/22/25 at 1:12 P.M. of Resident #43 revealed the resident was sitting in her room wearing an oversized house coat and gloves. The heater was blowing out cold air. Interview on 01/22/25 at 1:14 P.M. with Resident #43 confirmed she was cold in her room and the heater was blowing…
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 before2024-11-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to use the proper lift for resident transfers. This affected one (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for lift transfers. The facility census was 81 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 07/31/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, edema, sepsis, dementia, and diabetes mellitus, and a discharge date of 11/10/24. Review of the care plan for Resident #10 dated 09/29/24 revealed the resident had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to history of cerebral vascular accident with hemiplegia with an intervention dated 10/02/24 to transfer with Hoyer lift with assist of two to transfer. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #10 dated 10/07/24 revealed the resident had moderate to severe cognitive deficits and required extensive assistance with ADLs. Review of occupational therapy discharge summary for Resident #10 dated 10/10/24 revealed therapy…
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 before2024-09-30 · 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, observations, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff with transferring out of bed received timely assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). This affected one (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 08/19/24. Her medical diagnoses included coronary artery disease, heart failure, and cerebrovascular attack (CVA). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired. Her functional status was substantial/maximal from staff for bed mobility and dependent on staff for transfers. Observations and interviews on 09/29/24 at 8:51 A.M. revealed State Tested Nursing Aide (STNA) #227 was in the room and Resident #3 had her food in front of her. STNA #227 asked the resident if she would like to get out of bed after breakfast…
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 · D2024-09-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents who were at risk for developing pressure ulcer were turned and repositioned every two to three hours per their care plan interventions and failed to complete treatments to the right heel ordered by the physician at the hospital. This affected three (#10, #18, and #72) three residents reviewed for change of positioning. The facility census was 87. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 09/04/24. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the right lower extremity for after care healing. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was cognitively intact. Review of the hospital orders for the right heel wound for Resident #18 dated 09/04/24 revealed there was mild drainage to the right heel and sutures were removed. The resident was advised to relieve pressure from the heel wound as she could…
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 before2024-09-30 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 ensure the resident's bladder scans were completed for a trial after the indwelling catheter was removed per hospital discharge orders. This affected one (#18) of one resident reviewed for bladder scanning. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 09/04/24. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the right lower extremity for after care healing. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was cognitively intact. Her functional status was substantial/maximal assistance from staff for toileting and bed mobility, and supervision from staff for transfers. Review of the hospital orders dated 09/04/24 revealed Resident #18 had a indwelling catheter while at the hospital and it was removed and the plan was for Resident #18 to go to the nursing home for a trial. The orders were to obtain bladder scans every six…
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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered via the physician ordered route. This affected one (#31) of five residents observed for medication administration observation. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #31 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral infarction, hypertensive cerebral ischemic attack chronic pain and hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #31 revealed a severely impaired cognition. Resident #31 was dependent for eating, bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. Review of the physician orders for Resident #31 for the month of April 2024 revealed an order for fluoxetine oral solution 20 milligrams (mg)/milliliter (ml) give 2.5 ml via gastrostomy (g-tube) in the morning, hydrochlorothiazide oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet via g-tube in the morning,…
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 before2024-05-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored. This affected two (#22 and #19) of five residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack and vascular dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) for Resident #22 dated 03/20/24 revealed an intact cognition. Resident #22 required set up for eating, and maximum assistance for transfers, bed mobility and total dependence for toileting. Review of physicians orders for Resident #22 for the month of May 2024 revealed an order for ibuprofen 200 milligrams (mg) tablet administer two tablets every eight hours as needed for musculoskeletal pain. Further review of Resident #22's medical record revealed there was no order or…
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 before2024-05-16 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, observations, policy review, review of manufacture's recommendations and review of the Centers of Disease Control website, the facility failed to disinfect a glucose monitoring device after usage with an appropriate disinfectant. This had the potential to affect two residents (#13 and #6) residing on the B unit of the second floor who share the glucose monitoring device. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene after removing wound dressing on resident in enhanced barrier precaution. This affected one (#34) out of three residents reviewed for infection control practices. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #13 revealed an admission date on 06/23/23 with diagnoses that include but not limited to cerebral infarction, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, type two diabetes mellitus and obesity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #13…
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 before2024-02-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to have a comprehensive water management plan to prevent water contamination. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The census was 70. Findings include: Review of the facility's water management records revealed the facility lacked a water management plan that included specific control measures followed to monitor the water supply for contamination, such as monitoring of disinfectant levels in the water. Observations on 02/28/24 from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. revealed filters were in place on sinks and showers, bottled water was available for use throughout the facility, and signs were posted indicating certain water sources were out of order. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 8:52 A.M., Maintenance Director #20 confirmed the facility lacked a comprehensive water management plan that included control measures that would be used to prevent water contamination, including disinfectant levels. Maintenance Director #20 reported the facility flushed sinks weekly and obtained…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect. This affected one (Resident #28) of one reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 12/04/23. Diagnoses included fibromyalgia, hyperlipidemia, dorsalis, hypothyroidism, compression fracture, moderate calorie malnutrition. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 15 that indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #28 required setup assistance for eating and supervision oral hygiene. Resident #28 was dependent upon staff for toileting, bathing, and transfers. Resident #28 required substantial maximum assistance for bed mobility. Resident #28 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the verbal disciplinary action dated 01/12/24 revealed the Administrator informally met with State…
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 before2024-02-02 · 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 record review, observation, interview, and facility policy, facility failed to ensure a resident had access to their call light. This affected one (Resident #71) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #71 revealed an admission date 12/07/23. Diagnoses included respiratory disorders diseases, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, anxiety disorder, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #71 was cognitively intact. Resident #71 was dependent upon staff for transfers, bathing, lower body dressing, and bed mobility. Observation and interview on 01/22/24 at 12:04 P.M. with Resident #71 verified she was sitting in her wheelchair and unable to reach the call light, which was on her bed, against the wall. Interview on 01/22/4 at 12:06 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #56 verified Resident #71's call light was in between the bed…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 advance directives were documented appropriately. This affected one (#37) out of eight residents reviewed for advance directives. The census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #37 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included polyneuropathy, type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of left lower extremity, Alzheimer's Disease, sleep apnea, acute kidney failure, pure hypercholesterolemia, congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, hypercalcemia, overactive bladder, hypothyroidism, mixed hyperlipidemia, and anemia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 had severely impaired cognition. This resident was assessed to require moderate assistance with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene, and maximal…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported to the state agency. This affected one (#51) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #51's medical record revealed Resident #51 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, muscle weakness, gastro esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, chronic rhinitis, constipation, unspecified osteoarthritis, hyperglycemia, adult failure to thrive, and diarrhea. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required set up assistance with eating, and oral hygiene. Resident #51 required maximal assistance with toileting, showering, transfers, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on and taking footwear,…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was thoroughly investigated. This affected one (#51) out of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #51's medical record revealed Resident #51 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, muscle weakness, gastro esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, chronic rhinitis, constipation, unspecified osteoarthritis, hyperglycemia, adult failure to thrive, and diarrhea. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required set up assistance with eating, and oral hygiene. Resident #51 required maximal assistance with toileting, showering, transfers, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on and taking footwear,…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans reflected the residents current status and behaviors. This affected one (#70) of one resident reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed Resident #30 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including other specified disorders of the brain, repeated falls, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #70's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required set up assistance with eating, and oral hygiene. Resident #70 was dependent with toileting, lower body dressing and sitting to lying. Resident #70 also required maximal assistance with showering, personal hygiene, and putting on and taking off shoes, and moderate assistance with upper body dressing, and rolling left to right. Review of Resident…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had access to hearing aids. This affected one (Resident #43) of one resident reviewed for hearing. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed Resident #43 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including urinary tract infection, radiculopathy, pain, lumbago with sciatica, other chronic pain, hypertension, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, unspecified fracture of shaft of unspecified tibia subsequent encounter for closed fracture with healing, unspecified fracture of shaft of unspecified fibula subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required set up assistance with oral hygiene. Resident #43 was independent with eating and dependent with toileting,…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper staff assistance with care to prevent falls. This affected one (#66) out of seven residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included sciatica, hepatic encephalopathy, vitamin d deficiency, insomnia, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, morbid obesity due to excess calories, anemia, hypokalemia, anxiety disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #66 had intact cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. The resident was assessed to require setup assistance for eating, oral hygiene, maximal assistance for bathing and upper body dressing, and was dependent for toileting, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, bed mobility, 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 · Dcited before2024-02-02 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, observation, interview, and facility policy, facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for two residents (#328 and #28) of four reviewed for incontinence care. Facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #328 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included aphasia, cognitive communication deficit, osteoporosis, and hypertension. Review of the plan of care dated 01/10/24 revealed Resident #328 was at risk for incontinence related to impaired mobility, cerebral vascular accident, cognitive communication deficit, pain related to compression fracture T-11-T12, and potential adverse side effects of medication received. Interventions included check Resident #328 routinely and as required for incontinence. Wash, rinse, and dry perineum during care. Resident #328 used an incontinent brief. Change clothing as needed after incontinence episodes. Monitor for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection and report to physician. Review 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 Review of facility record, observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision when taking medication for one resident (#50) out of four residents reviewed for medication. Facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #50 had an admission date 11/21/23. Diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety disorder, depression, glaucoma, and macular degeneration. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 was cognitively intact. Observation and interview on 01/22/24 at 11:18 A.M. with Resident #50 in their room with a medication cup with five pills left on the bedside table unattended. Interview on 01/22/24 at 11:22 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #56 verified medications were left at Resident #50's bedside table unattended. LPN #56 reported medications left were Miralax in water, one Citalopram 20 milligram (mg), one Buspar 5 mg, one Robaxin 500 mg, and two Gabapentin 100 mg. Review of facility…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARECORE HEALTH — 10 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 1.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HERTANU, CHAIM | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2023 |
| CARECORE HEALTH LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2023 |
| GENNANTONIO, MARGRETTA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOBLEY, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| FASTEN HALBERSTAM LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2023 |
| MARGARET HALL REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 365733. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-02-02, 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.