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

St Augustine Manor

7801 Detroit Ave, Cleveland, OH 44102 · Non profit - Corporation · 220 certified beds · (216) 634-7400 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (216) 634-7400 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited May 20241 actual-harm citation
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)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

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

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

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
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1468 W 9th St Ste 101 · (510) 424-1344 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1400 W 25th St · (216) 831-6466 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2716 Detroit Ave · (216) 696-8170 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Detroit Superior Brg · (440) 871-4526 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
2111 Center St · (216) 505-1090

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

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 weight5.7%6.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.2%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.6%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms15.1%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.6%0.1%0.1%worse
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.4%3.2%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.4%6.1%16.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.1%25.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.5%3.4%4.7%worse
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 table6.1%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.5%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.6%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.0%24.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.2%12.9%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.221.731.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.651.801.80typical

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.

51.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

51.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
62.3%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.28U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 62.3% 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 53 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 SNF51.5%CMS range 42.4–62.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 7.6–14.410.7%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 discharge62.3%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 discharge56.6%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 discharge52.8%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 identified98.8%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 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 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 hospitalization7.0%CMS range 4.6–10.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.031.02Oct 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

0.93
RN hours/ resident / day
1.24
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.41
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.59
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.53
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 220 beds and averages 189.6 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 30 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 4.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.41 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.87 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.10 to 0.53 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 (2024-05-22)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2023-05-10)

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

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

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

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.

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

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Patient Care Report, review of hospital records, review of information from the National Institute of Health, review of information from the Centers for Disease Control, facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #195's vision/eye needs were comprehensively assessed, treated, and monitored to timely identify an acute change in condition and prevent a complication requiring hospitalization. This affected one resident (#195) of three residents reviewed for a change of condition. The facility census was 194.Actual harm occurred on 02/15/26 when Resident #195 was transferred to the hospital due to increased pain to her left eye, purulent drainage and loss of vision. The resident was diagnosed with a corneal ulcer and infection resulting in hospitalization. Prior to the hospitalization, on 02/11/26 Resident #195 was diagnosed by the nurse practitioner to have conjunctivitis. However, between 02/12/26 and 02/14/26 there…

    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 · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #195's urinary tract infection was treated properly with antibiotics per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #195) out of three residents reviewed for antibiotic administration. The facility census was 194.Findings include:Review of Resident #195's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 09/23/25 and diagnoses included history of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and cerebral infarction without residual deficits, other incomplete lesion at C2 level of cervical spinal cord, systemic lupus erythematosus, major depressive disorder and type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. Resident #195 was discharged from the facility on 02/15/26.Review of Resident #195's Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #195 was cognitively intact. Resident #195 required set up and clean-up assistance with eating and oral hygiene and substantial to maximal…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed for Resident #65. This affected one resident (#65) of three residents observed for infection control. The facility census was 194.Findings include:Review of Resident #65's medical records revealed an admission date of 06/08/17 with diagnoses including gastrostomy (feeding tube), right sided paraplegia, muscle weakness and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #65 had impaired cognition. Resident #65 was dependent with toileting, bathing and transfers. Review of care plan dated 03/18/26 revealed Resident #65 required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) related to device. Interventions included appropriate signage on residents door, and instruct caregivers to wear disposable gowns and gloves during physical contact with resident. Review of current physician orders for March 2026 revealed Resident #65 was ordered EBP due 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-22 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — pattern
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such 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 4.) During observation and interview with R154 on 5/21/24 at approximately 5:05pm, R154 stated he goes to dialysis (a treatment for people whose kidneys are failing). R154 stated, Yes, three times [a week] Monday, Wednesday, Friday. When asked about his dialysis access site, R154 showed the surveyor his right upper arm. The site was covered with a dressing and secured with a tape. R154 stated he would get weighed at the dialysis unit. When asked if staff had been checking his vital signs when he returned from dialysis, R154 stated, No. R154 explained that staff checked him in the morning before but not after his dialysis treatment. Review of R154's Medical Diagnosis in Point Click Care (PCC, healthcare software and electronic health record) included end stage renal disease (kidney failure) and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of R154's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool) dated 4/29/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact…

    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 · D2024-05-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain dignity and respect at all times for Resident #62 and R448 by ensuring urinary drainage bags were covered. This affected two residents (#62 and R448) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 188. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #62 revealed an admission date of 12/19/23 with diagnoses that included quadriplegia, dysphagia, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and was dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 11/17/16 revealed Resident #62 was at risk for skin breakdown related to quadriplegia with interventions that included providing incontinence care every 2 hours and as needed. Review of the physician orders dated 02/18/24 revealed an order to provide incontinence care every two hours and 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-22 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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 a comprehensive care plan, physician orders, and interventions of monitoring and evaluation was in place for Resident #144's hand restraint. This affected one resident (Resident #144) of two residents reviewed for restraint use. The total census was 188. Findings include: Record review of Resident #144 revealed he admitted to the facility 10/04/23 and had diagnoses including sepsis, dementia, and tracheostomy status. Review of Resident #144's comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had a tracheostomy due to respiratory failure with an intervention initiated on 10/17/23 for bilateral hand mitts at all times to prevent decannulation. Remove and provide care every two hours and as needed. The care plan had not been revised and did not include specific interventions as to how often to monitor and evaluate the use of the restraint. Review of Resident #144's restraint assessment dated [DATE] revealed he required PRN (as-needed)…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-05-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    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 observation, record review, interview, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures for enhanced barrier precautions and failed to ensure the multi-use glucometer blood testing (BGT) machine was disinfected and sanitized effectively to prevent the potential for cross-contamination of blood borne pathogens. This affected Resident #162 who was in enhanced barrier precautions of 28 residents with physician orders for enhanced barrier precautions residing on the fourth floor including Resident #25, #31, #33, #63, #87, #91, #146, #149, #159, #162, #180, #196, #198, #200, #354, #358, #454, #455, #456, #457, #459, #460, #462, #463, #466, #468, #469 and had the potential to affect an additional eighteen residents residing on the 4th floor who were not in enhanced barrier precautions or isolation precautions and the finding affected Resident #166 who received a BGT on the 2 [NAME] Unit and had 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach and accessible for Residents #14, and #72. This affected two residents (#14 and #72) of 197 residents reviewed for call light placement. The facility census was 197. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #14 was admitted on [DATE] to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to seizures, hemiplegia, epilepsy, and multiple fractures of the pelvis. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of two staff for mobility, transfer, and toilet. Observation on 05/07/23 at 11:45 A.M. revealed Resident #14 was lying in bed. Resident #14's call light was observed lying on nightstand and not within reach of resident. Resident # 14 stated that she was getting over pneumonia. At the time of observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #626 verified call light was…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure wound care was completed as ordered. This finding affected one (Resident #143) of three residents reviewed for wounds. Findings include: Review of Resident #143's medical record revealed she was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, difficulty in walking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #143's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed she exhibited intact cognition. Review of Resident #143's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/20/23 to cleanse the left lower extremity skin tear with normal saline, pat dry, apply an adaptic (non stick dressing) followed by a foam dressing three times a week and as needed. The wound care was due every day shift on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Review of Resident #143' treatment administration records (TARS) from 05/01/23 to 05/08/23 revealed the skin tear wound treatment was documented as completed on 05/05/23 on the TAR.…

    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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #165's pressure relieving foam boots were implemented as ordered. This finding affected one (Resident #165) of two residents reviewed for pressure wounds. The facility census was 197. Findings include: Review of Resident #165's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, aphasia following a cerebral infarction and diabetes insipidus. Review of Resident #165's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he exhibited a memory problem. The medical record did not reveal current pressure ulcer wounds. Review of Resident #165's physician orders revealed an order dated 11/28/22 for pressure reduction boots to the bilateral feet as a preventative measure and check for placement. Review of Resident #165's Skin Care Plan indicated he was at risk for the development of skin breakdown and the intervention dated 11/29/22 indicated to apply pressure reduction boots to both…

    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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #193 was provided adequate supervision during care to prevent a fall. This finding affected one (Resident #193) of two residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 197 Findings include: Review of Resident #193's medical record revealed he was admitted [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including post traumatic seizures, muscle weakness and aphasia. Review of Resident #193's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated he exhibited severe cognitive impairment and required extensive two person assist for bed mobility and toilet use. He required total dependence two person assist for transfers and total dependence one person assist for dressing and eating. Review of Resident #193's physician orders revealed an order dated 11/16/22 and discontinued 05/04/23 to transfer the resident with a Hoyer mechanical lift with the assistance of two staff members every shift. Review of Resident #193's Morse Fall…

    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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% (percent). This finding affected two (Residents #75 and #125) of six residents observed for medication administration. A total of 26 medications were administered with two errors for a medication error rate of 7.69%. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #125's medical record revealed he was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes, end stage renal disease and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #125's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he exhibited intact cognition. Review of Resident #125's physician orders revealed an order dated 10/09/22 to administer lispro insulin (fast acting) if the blood sugar was zero to 149 administer then administer no units; 150 to 199 administer one unit; 200 to 249 administer two units, 250 to 299 administer three units, 300 to 349 administer five units, 350 to 399 administer seven units and if greater than 400…

    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 · D2019-12-05 · 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure advance directives for Resident #64 were accurately and consistently noted throughout the resident's medical record. This affected one resident (#64) of one resident reviewed for advance directives. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #64 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid obesity, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Review of Resident #64's electronic physician's orders, dated 09/25/19 revealed an advance directive for Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care- Arrest (DNRCC-Arrest), resuscitative therapies before an arrest, but not during or after an arrest. Review of the hard copy of medical record for Resident #64 revealed a signed advance directive for Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC), care that eases pain and suffering but no resuscitative therapies. Interview on 12/03/19 at 8:52 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 · Dcited before2019-12-05 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #72, who had a urinary (Foley) catheter had timely orders, assessments and documentation of care appropriate for the management of the catheter. This affected one resident (#72) of one resident reviewed for urinary catheter care. Findings include: Record review for Resident #72 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pressure ulcer of the hip, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Review of the diagnosis list revealed no diagnosis that was appropriate for long-term Foley use (such as neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, obstructive uropathy, or other diagnoses involving a blockage of the bladder or failure in its function). Review of the resident's progress notes revealed on 10/12/19 the resident experienced urinary retention and staff inserted a Foley. There were no physician orders received in regards to the Foley to remain in place or to receive regular…

    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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide Resident #171 with a comfortable home like environment. This affected one resident (#171) of 79 residents who resided on the second floor unit. Findings include: A tour of the environment was conducted with the Outside Electrical Contractor, (OEC) #500 who was an employee of the facility's maintenance team was conducted on 12/05/19 from 12:05 P.M. to 12:20 P.M. During the tour, observation of Resident #171's room revealed wall damage under the face bowl in need of plastering, sanding and painting. While standing in front of the face bowl, the bottom portion of the wall to the right was damaged and the lath and plaster screen used for wall plastering was exposed. Review of the daily maintenance work request log from 10/2019 to 12/5/2019 revealed no request for maintenance work for the room belonging to Resident #171. Interview with (OEC) #500 on 12/05/19 at 12:21 P.M. revealed all staff were responsible for reporting any maintenance concerns regarding the residents' room. Moreover, the maintenance…

    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

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CATHOLIC CHARITIES CORPORATIONOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/24/1969
NEWCOMB, ELAYNEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 02/01/2021
DAWSON, THERESAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2009
GOSCHE, JANETIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
MCCARTHY, KARENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2009
MCGRIEVY, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/08/2022
PUMPHREY, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2012
SHEEHAN, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2009
STREETER, MARILYNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2010
HUBA, FRANKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/14/1993
MESERINI, RICKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/13/2014

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.

$27.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-14.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 19%Medicare 3%Other / private 78%

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

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

Cost & finances

$464per resident / day
operating cost
$14,117per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$404per 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 365883. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-05-22, 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