Home At Taylor's Pointe
3464 Springdale Road, Cincinnati, OH 45251 · For profit - Corporation · 92 certified beds · (513) 741-4888 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 1.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 83.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 0.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.9% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.6% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.9% | 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 | 55.9% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.4% | 12.9% | 12.0% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 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 | 0.79 | 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 92 beds and averages 86.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.69 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were held quarterly for residents and their representatives. This affected five (Residents #5, #9, #50, #51, and #63) of five residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic ischemic heart disease, hypertension, vascular dementia, diabetes mellitus type II, and morbid obesity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had no cognitive impairment and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #5 required supervision with eating, moderate assistance with oral hygiene, dependent on staff for toileting, dressing and transfers and maximal assistance with bathing, personal hygiene and bed mobility. Review of the Care Conference Meeting Summary documents, as supplied by 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 · Ecited before2025-03-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen to prevent cross contamination of food. This affected 81 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified 10 residents who do not receive food from the kitchen. The facility total census was 91. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 03/17/25 at 7:53 A.M. of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM) #140 revealed there were 15 individually packaged desserts, one opened beef base container, nine opened containers of liquids, and approximately 30 hard boiled eggs stored undated. There was a large tray of cooked sausage patties which were stored uncovered in the refrigerator. There was an opened undated container of jelly stored in the dry storage room with a label to refrigerate after opening. DM #140 verified the undated and uncovered food in the refrigerators and unrefrigerated items. 2. Observation on 03/19/25 from 7:30 A.M. through 8:15 A.M. revealed Dietary Manager (DM) #140 with approximately 20 rope-like strands of hair hanging out…
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 · D2025-03-20 · 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 observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's had a dignified meal experience in the dining room. This affected two (Residents #32 and #191) of 15 residents in the 300 memory care unit dining room. The facility census was 91. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #191 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included anxiety, dementia, multiple sclerosis, and psychotic disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #191 had impaired cognition and required supervision with feeding assistance. Record review of Resident #32 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] . Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, aphasia, anxiety, depressive disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 had impaired cognition. The resident received a regular, puree consistency diet. Record review of Resident #27…
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 · D2025-03-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician's order, resulting in a medication error rate rate which exceeded five percent (%). 35 opportunities were observed with four medication errors, resulting in a 11.43% error rate. This affected one (Resident #71) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type II (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #71 had intact cognition. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #71 had the following orders: an order dated 02/07/25 for Novolog pen-injector 100 unit per milliliter (ml) (Insulin Aspart), inject 10 unit subcutaneously before meals for DM, hold 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 · Dcited before2025-03-20 · 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 observations, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure hand sanitation was performed during meal service. This affected three residents (#71, #85 and #61) observed during meal service. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #61 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included sepsis and ileostomy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 had severely impaired cognition. The resident had a physician order for contact isolation. Observation on 03/19/25 at 8:40 A.M. revealed there was a sign on a Resident #61's room door. The signage revealed the resident was in contact precautions and everyone must clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #117 donned gloves and gown and entered Resident #61's room with the breakfast meal tray. CNA #117 was observed to assist the resident in 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 · Ecited before2023-11-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 observations, staff interviews, medical record review, review of guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and review of the policy, the facility failed to implement effective and recommended infection source control practices to prevent the spread of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). This affected four (#75, #77, #81, and #85) of four Residents who tested positive for COVID-19 and had the potential to affect all fourteen (#74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #86, and #88) residents that resided on the unit. The facility census was 87. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 11/29/22. Her diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, COVID-19, and mood disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #75 had impaired cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99. This resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-03 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to apply a resting hand splint per the plan of care. This affected one resident (#31) out of two residents reviewed for application of assistive devices. The facility census was 87. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date on 10/02/22. Diagnoses included chronic ischemic hypertension, heart disease, stenosis of carotid artery, iron deficiency anemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, umbilical hernia, obesity, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, stroke, anxiety, contracture, osteoarthritis, and urinary tract infections. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 had intact cognition. Resident #31 was not coded with rejections of care of behaviors. Resident #31 required extensive assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of the plan of care for Resident #31 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 · D2022-10-03 · 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, resident, and pharmacist interview, observations, review of the quick reference guide for the fasting glucose monitoring system, and policy review, the facility failed to document a physician's order for a fasting glucose device on the medication administration record and document every fourteen days the need to change to subcutaneous sensor. This affected one resident (#47) out of two residents reviewed for medication administration documentation related to the application and monitoring of a fasting glucose monitoring system. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Medical review for Resident #47 revealed an admission dated on 01/31/22 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, chronic bronchitis, iron deficiency anemia, bipolar disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic sinusitis, viral hepatitis C, hypertension, and type two diabetes. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #47 revealed intact cognition. Resident #47…
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 before2022-10-03 · 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, observation, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer medications under direct supervision. This affected one resident (#31) out of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date on 10/02/22. Diagnoses included chronic ischemic hypertension, heart disease, stenosis of carotid artery, iron deficiency anemia, umbilical hernia, obesity, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, stroke, anxiety, contracture, osteoarthritis, and urinary tract infections. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #31 revealed intact cognition. Resident #31 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, and toilet use. Resident #31 required total assistance for transfers and supervision for eating. Review of the physician orders for Resident #31 for the month of September 2022 revealed an order 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 · Ecited before2019-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the state revised code (that the facility followed) the facility failed to ensure staff wore hairnets while serving meals. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility who received food prepared in the kitchen. The facility identified four Residents (#8, #10, #58, and #61) who did not receive food by mouth. The census was 82. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 08/05/19 at 8:15 A.M. revealed Dietary [NAME] (DC) #18 did not have a hair net and Dietary Supervisor (DS) #36's ponytail was hanging out of the hair net while serving breakfast on the trayline. Interview on 08/05/19 at 8:30 A.M., revealed staff DC #18 and DS #36 confirmed that they had not had their hair covered while serving breakfast. A follow up observation of the kitchen on 08/06/19 at 7:20 P.M., revealed DS #36 was scooping sherbet into bowls for the next day and DS #36 was not wearing a hairnet. Interview on 08/06/19 at 7:30 P.M., DS #36 indicated she was unaware she did not have a hairnet on while preparing desert for the next…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-08 · 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 medical record review, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had the opportunity to participate it the care planning process. This affected one (Resident #232) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Review of Resident #232's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/05/19. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, weakness, malaise, contracture of muscle (multiple sites), end stage renal disease, anemia in chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes, mixed hyperlipidemia, and essential hypertension. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance to total dependence upon staff for activities of daily living. Review of the Social Service progress note dated 07/16/19 at 11:20 A.M. revealed a care conference was held on 07/12/19 and was attended by the resident's spouse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-08 · 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
Based on medical record, observation, staff interview, review of medication product information, review of online drug reference, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure expired eye drops were not available for resident use. This affected one of three medications carts observed for expired medications and two (#29 and #57) of six residents the facility identified with orders for eye drops from the Maple High medication cart. The facility census was 82. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #29's current physician's orders revealed an order dated 04/16/19 for Brimonidine 0.2%, instill one drop in both eyes three times a day for glaucoma. Observation 08/08/19 at 12:56 P.M. of the Maple High medication cart with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #84 revealed an opened bottle of Brimonidine 0.2% ophthalmic drops labeled for Resident #29. The bottle contained a hand-written open date of 05/07/19 and the manufacturer's expiration date printed on the bottle was 12/2020. Interview at the time of the observation LPN #84 verified the eye drops were opened and had an open…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a residents diet was followed. This affected one (#27) of one resident reviewed for food preferences. Census was 82. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #27 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, dysphagia oral phase, cognitive communication deficit, hypotension of hemodialysis, hyperkalemia, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had intact cognition for decisions. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #27 required extensive assistance with one person assist for bed mobility, toileting and transfer. Review of nutrition assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #27 was on a low concentrated sweet diet. Interview on 08/06/19 at 10:08 A.M., revealed Resident #27 reported she was a diabetic. Resident #27 reported she received deserts with her meals…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-08 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident's call light was functioning. This affected one (#34) of 24 residents reviewed for call light function. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, Alzheimer's disease, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. The assessment documented the resident required extensive assistance for activities of daily living including one-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing and toileting. Review of the care plan dated 02/15/19 revealed Resident #34 was to notify nursing of any complaints of pain or discomfort. Resident needed assistance with toileting. Observation on…
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 FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS — 64 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 | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| COLLERAN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| KRYSTOWSKI, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
| FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| ABNER, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/08/2022 |
| RIVERA, EMMANUEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
1 organizational owner 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.
This home reported $650K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 366332. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-20, 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.