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

Judson Park

2181 Ambleside Rd, Cleveland, OH 44106 · Non profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (216) 721-1234 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (216) 721-1234 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)2 actual-harm citations$25,847 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

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)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • the CMS record shows $25,847 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-01)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
11100 Euclid Ave · (216) 844-1922 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
10617 Frank Ave · (216) 231-6441 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
11214 Stokes Blvd
Park
Woodstock Ave &, Martin Luther King Jr Dr · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
2222 Stokes Blvd · (216) 791-8411

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

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 increased4.4%5.3%15.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight12.5%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 infection2.8%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms10.3%30.1%6.5%better 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 injury2.7%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication0.0%25.5%18.9%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.5%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.2%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control11.2%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.9%8.8%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine66.2%75.6%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.6%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.2%12.9%12.0%better

* 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.

62.0% 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 155 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

62.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
32.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
not reportedno hours filed
Therapy hours / resident / day

Met the expected recovery: 32.7% 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 55 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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 SNF62.0%CMS range 55.5–67.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.1%CMS range 8.0–14.910.7%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 discharge32.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge49.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge29.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.4%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 worsened0.0%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 4.3–12.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.751.02Oct 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

1.22
RN hours/ resident / day
4.38
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.50
Aide hours/ resident / day
8.10
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 28.6 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 8.10 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.22 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.50 is at or above 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 6.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 8.78 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.55 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2023-01-24)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2020-03-05)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and individualized care planned interventions to prevent/reduce risk of falls and injury. This affected one resident (#27) of three residents reviewed who were at risk for falls. Actual harm occurred on 09/02/24 when Resident #27, who was identified as a high risk for falls, was found on the floor, unable to move her left leg and in severe pain. Resident #27 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment where she was diagnosed with a fractured hip. Prior to the incident, Resident #27's scheduled sitter did not show up and the family nor the contacted company that provided the sitter were notified so arrangements for a replacement could be made. In addition, there was no evidence facility fall interventions were in place at the time of the resident's fall. While unsupervised in her room, Resident #27 got up from a wheelchair and walked out to the corridor where she fell. Findings include: Review of…

    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
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-03-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on closed medical record review, staff interview, review of emergency medical services report, review of hospital records, review of facility policy, and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed to ensure resident safety during a Hoyer lift transfer. Actual harm occurred on 02/21/24 when Resident #30, who was cognitively impaired, at risk for falls and dependent on staff for transfers using a mechanical (Hoyer) lift, fell from the Hoyer lift during a staff assisted transfer resulting in hospitalization with injuries including a right frontal bone fracture extending into superior orbit, bilateral maxillary bone fractures, and bilateral inferior orbital wall fractures with involvement of right nasal lacrimal duct. This affected one resident (#30) of three reviewed for safe transfers. The facility census was 24. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 02/08/24 and a discharge date of 02/21/24. Diagnoses included vascular Parkinsonism, mild cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, congestive heart…

    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 · D2024-10-01 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide written information to the resident or resident representative regarding the facility bed hold policy upon discharge to hospital. This affected one (Resident #27) of three residents reviewed who required a bed hold notice. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #27 revealed an admission date of 08/26/24 and a discharge date of 09/02/24. Diagnoses included restlessness and agitation, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, and delirium due to known physiological condition. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/02/24, revealed Resident #27 had impaired cognition. Review of the nurse progress note dated 09/02/24 timed at 8:30 P.M. revealed Resident #27's son, who was at the facility after a fall, requested staff to contact emergency services because of Resident #27's increased pain levels and long wait time for x-rays. At 8:45 P.M. emergency services arrived at the facility to transport Resident #27 to the hospital. Review of the nurse progress note dated 09/03/24…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-01 · tag F0626 — isolated
    Permit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and interview the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility after discharge to hospital for a change in condition. This affected one (Resident #27) of three residents reviewed who had been transferred to the hospital. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #27 revealed an admission date of 08/26/24 and a discharge date of 09/02/24. Diagnoses included restlessness and agitation, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, and delirium due to known physiological condition. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/02/24, revealed Resident #27 had impaired cognition. Review of the nurse progress note dated 09/02/24 timed at 8:30 P.M. revealed Resident #27's son, who was at the facility after a fall requested staff to contact emergency services because of Resident #27's increased pain levels and long wait time for x-rays. At 8:45 P.M. emergency services arrived at the facility to transport Resident #27 to 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the medical record contained an accurate representation of the resident's actual experience. This affected one (Resident #27) of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #27 revealed an admission date of 08/26/24 and a discharge date of 09/02/24. Diagnoses included restlessness and agitation, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, and delirium due to known physiological condition. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/02/24, revealed Resident #27 had impaired cognition. Behaviors identified on the MDS included verbal and physical aggressiveness toward staff. Review of the plan of care dated 08/27/24 revealed Resident #27 was at risk for falls. Review of a nurse progress note dated 08/28/24 timed 3:08 P.M. revealed Resident #27 had a fall on 08/27/24. The progress note indicated that a fall mat and alarm were in place. The progress note provided no information regarding the time, place or specifics of the fall. Further review of…

    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 · D2023-01-24 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #181, #184 and #186 had accurate advance directive orders and documentation in place for staff to accurately identify code status. This affected three Residents (#181, #184 and #186) out of five residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 25. Findings include: 1 Review of Resident #181's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of aftercare following joint replacement surgery, spinal stenosis lumbar, sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, Parkinson's disease, malignant neoplasm of prostate, myocardial infarction, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #181 revealed there were no orders to identify code status in the electronic medical record (EMR) or in the hard medical chart. Review of the facility document titled DNR Order Form, dated [DATE] and having Resident #181's name on it, revealed a physician signature, a large line…

    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 · D2023-01-24 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccinations were offered to Resident #17, #185 and #186 at least annually. This affected three residents (Resident #17, #185, and #186) of five residents reviewed for vaccines. The faciliy census was 25. Findings include: 1 Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of normal pressure hydrocephalus, presence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage device, dementia, and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. Review of Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed the resident was moderately impaired for decision making and required extensive assistance of two plus for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and was extensive assistance of one for hygiene, and dressing. Review of Resident #17's immunization records revealed he had an influenza vaccine on 10/20/21 and there was no evidence the facility offered an…

    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 · D2023-01-24 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were functioning and that needed repairs received timely intervention. This affected one of one residents (Resident #2) reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility census was 25. Findings include: Record review of Resident #2 revealed she was admitted to the facility 08/09/06 and had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, dysphagia, wheelchair dependence, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, and unspecified dementia. Her last Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment on 10/29/22 revealed she had moderate cognitive impairment, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and required extensive or total staff assistance for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, hygiene, and toileting. Interview with Resident #2 on 01/17/23 at 10:21 A.M. revealed her call light had been broken for weeks. She shouted for help when she needed assistance and denied any negative effects from this. Observation at the time of the above interview revealed Resident #2's call light cord connected to a plastic box which appeared to…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-03-05 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility did not ensure two residents (Residents #20 and #137) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications had as needed psychotropic medications addressed for necessity and a duration. The facility identified three additional residents who received as needed psychotropic medications, Residents #3, #4, and #8. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission on [DATE]. Diagnoses included pleural effusion, shortness of breath, irregular heartbeats, cancer, congestive heart failure and adjustment disorder with other symptoms. The medical record reflected on 02/05/20 the physician had placed an initial order for Lorazepam, an antianxiety medication, 0.5 milligram (mg) every two hours as needed for anxiety or restlessness. No stop date was indicated or stated on the order. An interview was completed on 03/03/20 at 4:50 P.M. with the Registered Nurse (RN) #502 and verified the lack of evidence of a 14-day…

    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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered and secure for one resident (Resident #131) of 33 residents observed during the annual survey. The facility identified nine residents (Residents #1, #11, #13, #14, #15, #127, #129, #135 and #139) who were independently mobile with or without an assistive device. Findings include: Resident #131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and status post intestinal obstruction with surgical repair. Review of Resident #131's medical record revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was completed on 02/28/20 where Resident #131 scored a 14 which demonstrated no cognitive impairment. Observation of Resident #131's bedside table on 03/02/20 at 9:55 A.M. revealed a breakfast tray which the resident was still eating off of, numerous toiletry items including tissues, a mirror, and brush, and a small plastic cup with five pills. During…

    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

“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.

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

$25,847 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $25,847 — penalty dated 2024-10-01

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTERESTsince 10/01/2013
KENNEDY, MARYELLENIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2010
AUWERTER, JAYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/11/2013
BAESLACK, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/11/2013
HARTWELL, SAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/11/2013
KOPPELMAN, CATHYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/29/2012
SHAW, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2011
VEGH, AMYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/11/2013
CARNOVALE, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/01/2010
DUNN, CYNTHIAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2010
JUDSONOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2010

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 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.

$22.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-40.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 23%Other / private 77%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

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 365870. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-01-24, 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.

What to do next