Sanctuary Pointe Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
11501 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45231 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 124 certified beds · (513) 648-7000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.7% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 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 | 29.1% | 30.1% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 1.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.3% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.0% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.3% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.8% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 2.5% | 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.
61.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 122 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 40 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 61.4%CMS range 52.1–68.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.9–13.2 | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 47.5% | 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 | 42.5% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 | 2.0% | 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 | 8.2%CMS range 4.7–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 124 beds and averages 116.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.44 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.58 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-25 · 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 observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve foods in a sanitary manner and in accordance with the facility policies. This had the potential to affect all 114 residents who received food from the kitchen. Facility census was 114. Findings include: 1. Observations of the facility kitchen on 04/22/24 8:20 A.M., revealed the following areas of concern: a. There was no temperature log of the dishwasher temperatures for the month of April 2024 through the past six months. b. The ice machine, which provided ice to the entire facility, had a pink wet substance on the inside of the ice storage bin which was touching the ice. c. In the walk-in refrigerator, there was no thermometer, and eight bags of undated and unlabeled food. There was a container of opened coleslaw with expiration date of 04/14/24. There were 22 wrapped plates of unlabeled and undated food. The refrigerator temperature log for April 2024 had no daily entry past 04/22/24. d. The walk-in freezer temperature log for April 2024 had no daily entry past…
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 before2024-04-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were discarded after their expiration date. This affected one (#59) of three residents observed for medication administration and also affected four (#1, #38, #72, and #368) of 30 residents who received medication from the 200 hall medication cart. The facility census was 114. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus (DM II), Alzheimer's disease, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the physician order dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was ordered Novolog Solution 100 unit/milliliter (ml), inject per sliding scale subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes. Observation on [DATE] at 2:48 P.M. of medication cart on 400 hall revealed Resident #59's Novolog vial was opened on [DATE], indicating the insulin was expired. Interview on [DATE] at 2:53 P.M. with Licensed Practical…
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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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 blood work was completed as ordered. This affected two (#23 and #88) out of five residents reviewed for laboratory services. Facility census was 114. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 02/02/21. Diagnoses included dementia, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), psychosis, atrial fibrillation, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 had intact cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13. This resident was assessed to require supervision with eating, dependent with toileting, bathing, dressing, and transfers. Review of the physician order dated 10/13/23 revealed Resident #23 was ordered to obtain complete blood count (CBC), complete metabolic panel (CMP), thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), Fasting Lipid Panel (FLP),…
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 before2023-12-12 · 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 medical record review, staff and physician interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify a physician of a resident's change in condition. This affected one (#110) of three residents reviewed for death. The census was 108. Findings include: Review of Resident #110's closed medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included diverticulosis, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, carotid stenosis, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #110 passed away in the facility on [DATE]. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #110 had severe cognitive impairment and was receiving Hospice services. Review of progress notes dated [DATE] at 10:41 A.M. revealed Resident #110's oxygen (O2) level was at 79 percent (%) on four liters upon waking. A breathing treatment was administered. Supervisor and Hospice were notified of the low O2 level. Review of progress notes dated [DATE] at 4:33 P.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-12 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice 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, staff and physician interviews and policy review, the facility failed to coordinate hospice care to ensure hospice recommendations were timely implemented. This affected one (#110) of three residents reviewed for death. The census was 108. Findings include: Review of Resident #110's closed medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included diverticulosis, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, carotid stenosis, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #110 passed away in the facility on [DATE]. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #110 had severe cognitive impairment and was receiving Hospice services. Review of progress notes dated [DATE] at 10:41 A.M. revealed Resident #110's oxygen (O2) level was ar 79 percent (%) on four liters upon waking. A breathing treatment was administered. Supervisor and Hospice were notified of the low O2 level. Review of progress notes dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 oxygen was administered as ordered. This affected three Residents (#11, #12, and #13) out of four residents reviewed for working oxygen concentrators. The census was 108. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including congested heart failure, acute kidney failure, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of the Discharge Return Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/19/23, revealed Resident #11 had moderate cognitive deficits and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (adl). Review of Resident #11's care plan, dated 07/13/23, revealed Resident #11 had oxygen therapy related to congestive heart failure and respiratory failure with interventions to monitor for respiratory distress and to give medicine as ordered by the physician. Review of Resident #11's physician order, 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 · F2020-03-12 · 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 medical record review, interviews with a local health department Epidemiologist and facility staff, review of the Ohio Department of Health Infection Disease Control Manual and review of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), the facility failed to report an outbreak of suspected scabies to local and state health departments. This affected five (#6, #25, #40, #54, and #306) of five residents reviewed and had the potential to affect all 103 residents residing in the facility. The facility in-house census was 103. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #25, revealed an admission date of 09/24/19. Diagnoses include anemia, cellulitis, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, metabolic encephalopathy, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, dementia without behavioral disturbances and osteoarthritis. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 12/31/19, revealed the resident was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander.…
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 before2020-03-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to discard discontinued controlled narcotics and discard an opened influenza (flu) vaccine after it expired. This affected one out of four medication storage areas observed during the survey and had the potential to affect four (#1, #17, #22 and #104) residents on 100 hallway who could potentially receive the expired flu vaccine. Facility census was 103. Findings include: Observation of 100 hall medication storage room refrigerator on [DATE] at 9:12 A.M. with RN #50 revealed one multi vial flu vaccine dated [DATE]. Interview with RN #50 on [DATE] at 9:13 A.M. verified the multi vial flu vaccine was opened and dated [DATE] being stored inside the refrigerator. RN #50 stated the multi vial flu vaccine should have discarded 28 days after it was opened. RN #50 confirmed this had the potential to affect four (#1, #17, #22 and #104) residents on 100 hallway who could potentially receive the expired flu vaccine.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-03-12 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician when a resident had to wait for transportation to the hospital emergency room. This affected one (#6) out of 31 residents sampled during the annual survey. Facility census was 103. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 05/16/18. Diagnoses include cerebral infarction, hypertension, acute respiratory infection, dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, dysphagia oropharyngeal phase, and depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6's cognition was severely impaired. Review of Resident #6's nursing notes dated 01/07/20 revealed a note which revealed the facility nurse practitioner had seen and examined Resident #6, ordered an antibiotic for the resident, intravenous fluids, orders for labs to be drawn on the morning of 01/08/20 and an order for oxygen via nasal cannula due to the diagnosis…
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 · D2020-03-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual, the facility failed to code a resident's minimum data set (MDS) assessment accurately to reflect the resident's prognosis. This affected one (#62) of one resident's reviewed for hospice services. The total facility census was 103. Findings include: Review of Resident #62's medical record revealed resident was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses include metabolic encephalopathy, mixed incontinence, tremor, osteoarthritis, zoster without complications, weakness, type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dementia. Review of the resident physician orders revealed the resident was admitted to hospice services on 07/20/19. Review of Resident #62's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was coded under section J1400 as no, and section O0100-Special Treatment, Procedures and Programs; K-Hospice- as yes for receiving hospice services. Further review of question J1400 revealed 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 · D2020-03-12 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders regarding monitoring resident's weights and/or implementing as needed medications as physician ordered related to a residents weight. This affected two (#54 and #55) out of 31 residents reviewed during the annual survey. Facility census was 103. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #54 revealed an admission date of 10/11/19. Diagnoses include displaced fracture of sixth cervical vertebra, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease and venous insufficiency. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #54's cognitive was moderately impaired. Review of Resident #54's current physician orders revealed an order for daily weights before breakfast and to notify the physician if a three pound weight gain in one day or five or more pounds in a week related to congestive heart failure. Review of Resident #54's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-12 · 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, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide timely care and services regarding audiology recommendations. This affected one (#75) of one residents reviewed for communication-sensory services. Facility census was 103. Findings include: Review of Resident #75 medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include sprain of ligament of left ankle, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, arthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, weakness, dry eye syndrome, and age related osteoporosis with out pathological fracture. Resident #75 medical record contained a signed consent for treatment for the audiologist dated 01/31/20 Review of admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident is cognitively intact with a brief interview of mental status score of 14 out of 15, the resident had no hallucinations, delusions, or behaviors. The resident required extensive assist for toileting, dressing, transfers, 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 · D2020-03-12 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents head of bed (HOB) was at or greater than 30 degrees during a bolus gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) feeding administration and facility failed to ensure resident had a gauze covering her stoma for a G-Tube. This affected one (#4) of the 15 residents reviewed during the survey. Facility census was 103. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #4, revealed an admission date of 11/17/27. Diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA), dysphagia, hypertension, conjunctivitis, osteoarthritis, congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes mellitus (DM), and G-tube. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/26/29, revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander. Resident was a two-person physical assist, dependent for eating, and dependent or required extensive assistance for activities of daily living (ADL's). Review of plan of care for Resident #4 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 · D2020-03-12 · 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
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to timely remove and dispose of discontinued controlled narcotics being stored in the medication carts. This affected two (#60 and #355) residents out of four medication storage areas observed during the survey. Facility census was 103. Findings include: 1. Observation of the 300-B hall medication storage cart with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #230 on 03/11/20 at 8:56 A.M. revealed two discontinued Fentanyl (Scheduled II controlled narcotic pain patches) 50 micrograms (mcg)/hour (hr) for Resident #60 in the locked narcotic bin. Interview with LPN #230 on 03/11/20 at 8:57 A.M. verified the two discontinued controlled Fentanyl patches for Resident #60 were discontinued on 01/15/20. LPN #230 stated Registered Nurse (RN) #250 and the Director of Nursing (DON) were supposed to remove the discontinued controlled medications on a weekly basis. 2. Observation of 100-B hall medication storage cart with LPN #100 on 03/11/20 at 9:15 A.M. revealed two discontinued Oxycodone (Scheduled II controlled pain medication) five milligram…
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 CARING PLACE HEALTHCARE GROUP — 5 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHASE M. KOHN IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 11/01/2024 |
| IRREVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT OF BARRY A. KOHN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 60% | since 02/15/2024 |
| KOHN, CHASE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 12/18/2024 |
| KOHN, PATSY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 60% | since 10/11/2023 |
| PAYNE, MATT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/18/2024 |
| CARING PLACE HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/08/2014 |
| CONCEPT REHAB, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2025 |
| BEAL, KATINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/25/2023 |
| GATES, TAMMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/19/2025 |
| LANG, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/03/2023 |
| LEWIS, STEVIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| ENGAGE CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2023 |
| KOHN FAMILY HOLDINGS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2013 |
| NEXT UP INVESTMENTS 2, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2013 |
| EPURE-POWERS, MONICA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/02/2025 |
| KOHN, JONATHAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2013 |
| SCHUMAN, LAURYN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
This home reported $1.2M 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 366432. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-24, 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.