No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Terrace View Gardens

3904 North Bend Road, Cincinnati, OH 45211 · For profit - Corporation · 82 certified beds · (513) 481-2201 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (513) 481-2201 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • 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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
3502 Boudinot Ave · (513) 481-9100 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
4047 Harrison Ave · (513) 661-0480 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3910 North Bend Rd · (513) 661-0572 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Westwood Northern Blvd · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
3628 Boudinot Ave · (513) 661-5166

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased2.9%5.3%15.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.3%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.2%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms72.9%30.1%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.1%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.5%6.1%16.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication18.9%25.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.6%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.7%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.5%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.6%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine74.1%75.6%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission37.0%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit0.0%12.9%12.0%check this — see note marked star below the table

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

59.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 38 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.28U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.10hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF59.0%CMS range 47.2–69.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.4%CMS range 6.5–16.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 identified82.6%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened13.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.3%CMS range 3.6–12.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.831.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.65
RN hours/ resident / day
0.72
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.01
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.38
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.49
RN hoursweekends
48.1%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 82 beds and averages 74.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.57 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-26)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2023-04-06)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · tag F0638 — pattern
    Assure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, the facility failed to timely complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This affected four residents (#44, #76, #14, and #09) out of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility census was 75.Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #44 revealed an admission re-entry date of 03/01/22. Diagnoses include paraplegia, vascular dementia, cognitive communication deficit, type II diabetes mellitus, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, major depressive disorder, delusional disorder, anxiety disorder, and complete traumatic amputation at level between left hip and knee. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 was cognitively intact. The resident was supervision assistance for eating, and oral hygiene, and maximal assistance for toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. The resident was documented as…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0636 — isolated
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual, the facility failed to timely complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This affected three (#04, #07, and #81) out of 24 residents reviewed for assessments. The facility census was 75.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #04 revealed an admission date of 01/16/25. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, other generalized epilepsy and epileptic syndromes intractable without status epilepticus, aphasia following cerebral infarction, iron deficiency anemia, hypertension, cerebral infarction, encephalopathy, vitamin d deficiency, depression, type two diabetes mellitus without complications, hyperlipidemia, hypertensive heart disease without heart failure, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia.Review of the annual MDS assessment started on 01/27/26 for Resident #04 revealed the assessment was not completed until 02/12/26. Resident #04 was identified as having…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0637 — isolated
    Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
    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 timely complete significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This affected three residents (#48, #05, and #11) of four residents reviewed for a significant change. The facility census was 75.Findings include: 1.Medical record review for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 05/23/23. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, dysphagia, aphasia, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, muscle weakness, chronic pulmonary embolism, and diabetes insipidus. Review of the most recent quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. The resident was maximal assistance for eating, and upper body dressing, dependent for oral hygiene, toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, transfers, and mobility in a manual wheelchair. Resident #48 was incontinent of bladder and bowel. Further review of Resident #48's record…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to conduct quarterly care conferences. This affected three (#02, #11, and #68) out of three residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 75.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #02 revealed an admission date of 08/01/22. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus without complications, major depressive disorder, hypertension, histoplasmosis, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, anemia, obesity, tachycardia, peripheral vascular disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, heart failure, and obstructive sleep apnea.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #02 was cognitively intact. Resident #02 was assessed to require supervision for eating, partial/moderate assistance for oral hygiene, and upper body dressing, substantial/maximal assistance for toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, and bed mobility, and was dependent…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed during incontinence care. This affected one (#36) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 72.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 04/24/25. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, depression, and transient ischemic attack (TIA).Review of the Five-day Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 had intact cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. This resident was assessed to require supervision with eating, dependent with toileting, transfers, and dressing, and substantial assistance with bathing.Review of section H for bowel and bladder of the Five-Day Medicare MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder.Review of the physician orders for Resident #36 revealed no…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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, staff interview, and review of a facility provided article, the facility failed to order and administer medication with an adequate indication for use and in the presence of adverse effects. This affected one (#2) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorder, congestive heart failure, and obstructive sleep apnea. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of a physician order dated 12/29/24 revealed Resident #2 was ordered amphetamine-dextroamphetamine (Adderall), a central nervous system stimulant, 30 milligram (mg) with instructions to give one tablet by mouth once a day for sleep apnea…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-04-06 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist 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 interview of facility staff, interview with eye surgery center staff, interview with resident's Power of Attorney (POA), the facility failed to ensure a resident eye surgery was rescheduled as needed. This affected one (#20) of one resident reviewed for eye care. The facility census was 73. Finding include: Review of medical record revealed Resident #20 had an admission date on 11/16/20, with diagnoses including: Down Syndrome, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy, and dementia. Review of Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #20 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #20 was total dependent with one-person physical assist for all care. Review of plan of care dated 12/27/22 revealed Resident #20 was at risk for inability to focus on objects, discriminate color, adjust to changes in light and dark, decreased impaired vision related to highly impaired vision related to cataracts, progression of disease processes and other factors. She was often…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2019-04-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of weekly menus, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the dining room was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected 20 residents (#3, #5, #7, #8, #9, #14, #17, #18, #20, #21, #37, #39, #43, #49, #50, #53, #56, #58, #60, and #69) observed in the dining room. The facility further failed to keep eight (#300, #302, #303, #306, #308, #312, #314, and #315) resident rooms on the 300 unit in a clean, sanitary and comfortable manner. The facility census was 76. Findings include: 1. Observation on 04/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., of Resident #18 and #39's floors revealed dark black skid marks across the floor. 2. Observation on 04/22/19 at 9:40 A.M., revealed Resident #53's privacy curtain had red and brown stains. 3. Observation on 04/22/19 at 10:00 A.M., revealed Resident #76s bathroom wall on the left side of the room had large dents and holes along with exposed drywall. The edges of the floors had dark black marks. Interview on 04/22/19 at 10:05 A.M., with…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-04-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure treatments were in place to prevent and promote healing of a pressure ulcer. This affected one (#44) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 76. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-entry date of 04/21/17. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), diabetes, heart failure, and dementia. Review of care plan dated 04/30/17 revealed Resident #44 was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to cerebral vascular accident, diabetes, dementia, incontinence, history of pressure areas, and mobility impairment. Interventions included assess for pain and provide treatment per physician orders, elevate heels when in bed as needed/tolerated, and pressure relieving boots as tolerated. Review of the annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 was severely impaired cognitively.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-04-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 resident interview, the facility failed to administer oxygen therapy appropriately for one resident (#31) of one reviewed for respiratory services. The facility census was 76. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, hemiplegia, paraplegia, obstructive sleep apnea, cerebral infarction (stroke), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney failure. Review of Resident #31's physician orders dated 12/18/18, revealed an order for oxygen at 3 liters per minute, per nasal cannula. Review of most recent annual 04/05/19 comprehensive assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The resident was noted to be receiving oxygen therapy at the facility. Observation of Resident #31 on 04/22/19 at 4:02 P.M., revealed the resident was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at a rate of 4.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula. Observation of Resident #31 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 54.1+0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.9+0.1 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.3+0.7 vs chain
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Inniswood Health and RehabilitationWesterville, OH 2 of 5Canterbury Villa Of AllianceAlliance, OH 2 of 5Park Health CenterSt Clairsville, OH 2 of 5Tuscany GardensPataskala, OH 2 of 5Veranda Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterCincinnati, OH 3 of 5Arlington Care CenterNewark, OH 3 of 5Bennington Glen Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterMarengo, OH 3 of 5Cumberland Pointe Care CenterSt Clairsville, OH 3 of 5Emerald Pointe Health And Rehab CtrBarnesville, OH 3 of 5Hickory Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterAkron, OH 3 of 5Home At Taylor's PointeCincinnati, OH 3 of 5McNaughten Pointe Nursing And RehabColumbus, OH 3 of 5Meadow Grove Transitional CareGrove City, OH 3 of 5The Gables Of Marysville Health And RehabilitationMarysville, OH 3 of 5The Gardens Of Fairfax Health Care CenterCleveland, OH 3 of 5Timberland Ridge Nursing & RehabilitationFairlawn, OH 4 of 5Austin Trace Health And RehabilitationCenterville, OH 4 of 5Batavia Nursing Care CenterBatavia, OH 4 of 5Claymont Health And RehabilitationUhrichsville, OH 4 of 5Crown Pointe Care CenterColumbus, OH 4 of 5Florentine GardensLoveland, OH 4 of 5Hickory Creek Of AthensThe Plains, OH 4 of 5Jefferson Healthcare CenterJefferson, OH 4 of 5Lafayette Pointe Nursing & Rehab CtrWest Lafayette, OH 4 of 5Maria Joseph Living Care CenterDayton, OH 4 of 5Mill Creek Nursing & RehabilitationGalion, OH 4 of 5Respiratory And Nursing Center Of DaytonMoraine, OH 4 of 5Sycamore Run Nursing And Rehab CtrMillersburg, OH 4 of 5Waterview Pointe Nursing & RehabilitationMarietta, OH 4 of 5Woods On French Creek Nursing & Rehab Center TheAvon, OH 5 of 5Admirals Pointe Nursing & RehabilitationHuron, OH 5 of 5Brunswick Pointe Transitional CareBrunswick, OH 5 of 5Capri GardensLewis Center, OH 5 of 5Carington ParkAshtabula, OH 5 of 5Concord Health & Rehab CtrWheelersburg, OH 5 of 5Concord Ridge Health And RehabilitationMentor, OH 5 of 5Country View Of SunburySunbury, OH 5 of 5Darby Glenn Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterHilliard, OH 5 of 5Glen MeadowsHamilton, OH 5 of 5Golden Years Nursing CenterHamilton, OH

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
COLLERAN, BRIANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
KRYSTOWSKI, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2018
FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
CAMPBELL, SANDRAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/23/2013
SEROTA, GRETCHENIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 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.

$8.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+0.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$578K
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 22%Medicare 3%Other / private 76%

This home reported $578K 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

$294per resident / day
operating cost
$8,951per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$297per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

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 366153. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.

What to do next