Highbanks Care Center
111 Lazelle Road East, Columbus, OH 43235 · For profit - Corporation · 56 certified beds · (614) 888-2021 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — 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)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 0.6% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 68.8% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.8% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 35.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.5% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 56 beds and averages 51.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.75 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #35's continuity of care from the hospital to the facility was thoroughly reviewed and implemented. This affected one (Resident #35) of three residents reviewed for infections. The facility census was 53.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 06/16/25. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, disorder of kidney and ureter, cyst of kidney, and a history of urinary tract infections (UTIs).Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 was moderately cognitively impaired, exhibited no behaviors of refusal of care, required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting and was frequently incontinent of urine and bowel.Review of the hospital after visit summary (AVS) dated 03/19/26 revealed Resident #35 had diagnoses of kidney stone, kidney cyst, and acute UTI. Instructions included to follow up with urologic surgery outpatient and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-19 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment in the memory care unit and in two resident rooms (Residents #6 and #8). This affected two residents (#6 and #8) and had the potential to affect all 25 residents on the memory care unit. The facility census was 52.Findings include:1.Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 10/31/22 with diagnoses to include but not limited to stroke, traumatic brain dysfunction, traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, progressive neurological conditions, amputation, and cardiorespiratory conditions.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero, which indicated Resident #6 was rarely or never understood with severely impaired cognition. Furthermore, the MDS revealed Resident #6 was totally dependent on staff for all personal care.Observation on 02/17/26 at 10:20 A.M. of Resident #6 revealed the bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the advanced directive matched in the electronic medical record and physical hard chart for one (Resident #10) out of 19 reviewed for the sample. The facility census was 53.Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 01/29/26. Diagnoses included unspecified mood (affective) disorder, obstructive and reflux uropathy, hyperlipidemia, and dementia of unspecified severity with mood disturbance.Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #10, dated 02/05/26, revealed the resident was rarely/never understood.Review of the advanced directive documentation in the electronic medical record revealed a signed Do Not Resuscitate-Comfort Care Arrest (DNR-CCA) order dated 01/14/26.Review of physician orders for Resident #10 revealed an order for Do Not Resuscitate-Comfort Care Arrest (DNR-CCA) status.Review of the hard chart on 02/19/26 at 10:20 A.M. revealed a code status face sheet indicating Full Code.Interview on 02/17/26 at 3:00 P.M. with Registered Nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-19 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8, on the secured memory care unit, was specifically provided activities to meet their interests and meet their psychosocial needs. This affected one Resident #8 of the two residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 52.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 12/26/24 with diagnoses to include but not limited to cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia, asthma, unspecified mood affective disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, hypertension, chronic pain, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease.Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of eight which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan for Resident #8 dated 05/05/25 revealed Resident #8 was a sociable person, willing to interact with others and participate in activities that relate 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for one (Rresident #3) per fall interventions. This affecpted one of one residnet reviewed for fall interventions. The facility census was 53. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 05/28/24. Diagnoses included primary generalized osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, and cerebral infarction unspecified.Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #3, dated 01/05/26, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 07, indicating cognitive impairment. The assessment further revealed the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility and was dependent for transfers and most activities of daily living, including toileting and dressing, and utilized a wheelchair for mobility.Review of the care plan dated 05/30/24 for falls revealed an intervention dated 05/31/24 to ensure the call light was within reach.Observation on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Oxygen tubing was maintained in a sanitary manner for one (Resident #3) out of one residents reviewed for respiratory concerns. The facility census was 53. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 05/28/24. Diagnoses included primary generalized osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, and cerebral infarction unspecified.Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #3, dated 01/05/26, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 07, indicating cognitive impairment. Further review indicated the resident received oxygen therapy while a resident of the facility.Observation on 02/17/26 at 10:10 A.M. revealed the oxygen tubing was lying on the ground and the nasal cannula was on the floor covered in dust. The oxygen tubing was not dated to indicate when it had been placed or last changed.Interview on 02/17/26 at 10:17 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #307 confirmed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-28 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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. Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/13/23. Resident #6's diagnoses included: type 2 diabetes mellitus, pseudobulbar affect, insomnia, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of Resident #6's Activities assessment dated [DATE] at 10:07 A.M., revealed Resident #6 loves music, especially classical music, and loves to sing. Resident #6 likes karaoke, Bingo, arts and crafts, and snacks. Resident #6 does better with one-on-one activities but does participate in group activities. Review of the plan of care dated 04/11/24 revealed Resident #6 did not engage in group activities. Resident #6 preferred activities in her room. Resident #6 enjoys spa day and getting hair/makeup done. Resident #6 voiced interest in getting nails done. Resident #6 really likes music. Interventions included to invite Resident #6 to music related activities and outside activities. Review of activity log from 02/04/24 through 08/19/24 revealed Resident #6 participated in valentine party, refused movie and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — patternProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, financial record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representative was provided assistance in financial matters ensuring resident does not lose eligibility of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicaid services. This affected four (#27, #30, #31, and #35) of eight resident financial records reviewed. The census was 55. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed an admission on [DATE]. Resident #27's diagnoses included: Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, dementia, aphasia, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and psychosis. Review of her minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/05/24, revealed she had a severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #27 's financial records, dated 08/15/23 to 08/06/24, revealed her resident funds account varied between $2,336.04 to $5,693.35. Review of Resident #27's notice for spend down revealed the notices were sent to her representative, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to apply a physcian ordered resting hand splint. This affected one (#31) of one resident reviewed for positioning. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20, with diagnoses including: hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia, and contracture of left hand. Review of a physician order dated 11/30/23 revealed Resident #31 was ordered a left resting hand splint per patient tolerance. Review of the plan of care dated 05/02/24 revealed Resident #31 had a left resting hand splint and was worn per Resident #31's tolerance level. Interventions included left resting hand splint as tolerated, with frequent skin checks for redness and monitoring pain or discomfort. A visual reminder was located in Resident #31's room. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not receiving an unnecessary amount of an antipsychotic medication. This affected one (#6) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. Facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/13/23, with diagnoses including: type 2 diabetes mellitus, pseudobulbar affect, insomnia, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of a progress note by psychiatric physician dated 11/08/23 revealed Resident #6's Invega (antipsychotic) was to be increased from 1.5 milligrams (mg) to three (3) mg at bedtime. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) from 11/08/23 through 12/07/23 revealed Resident #6 was administered Invega 1.5 mg and Invega three (3) mg for a total of 4.5 mg at bedtime. Review of a pharmacy recommendation dated 12/01/23 revealed it was difficult to assess the proper dose for Invega. Was the dose to be increased from 1.5 mg for a total of 4.5 mg…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment. This affected two (#31 and #44) of four residents reviewed for a homelike environment. The facility census was 55. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20, with diagnoses including: hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia, and contracture of left hand. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of a behavior note dated 08/07/24 at 8:08 P.M. revealed Resident #31 was peeling the wall by the bed. Observation on 08/26/24 at 3:44 P.M., revealed Resident #31 was lying in bed. An area of peeling drywall/paint was observed on the wall next to Resident #31's head. Interview on 08/27/24 at 3:11 P.M., with Maintenance Director #245 verified the wall next to Resident #31's bed needed repaired. Maintenance Director #245 stated the area was going to be fixed the week of 08/25/24.…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-17 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to hold routine interdisciplinary team (IDT) care conferences for the residents. This affected four (Residents #1, #15, #16, and #32) of four residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 03/25/22. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type II, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, insomnia, paranoid personality disorder, atherosclerotic heart disease, adult failure to thrive, convulsions, colostomy status, hemorrhagic condition, hypertension, mild cognitive impairment, and hallucinations. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had intact cognition. Resident #16 required supervision setup help only for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. Review of the interdisciplinary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-17 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in good repair. This affected four resident's (#1, #4, #7 and #24) of 24 residents reviewed for environment concerns. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. Observation on 02/13/23 at 7:59 P.M. of Resident #1 and Resident #7's room revealed a salad plate size dent in the wall above Resident #7's bed and the window blinds were broken with several pieces sticking out in various directions and several pieces broken off. Interview and observation on 02/13/23 at 7:59 P.M. with State Tested Nursing Aide (STNA) #151 confirmed the window blinds were broken and in disrepair and also confirmed the dent in the wall. STNA revealed Resident #7 was aggressive at times and had likely hit the wall herself. Interview and observation on 02/16/23 at 9:31 A.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #135 confirmed the dent in the drywall above Resident #7's bed. 2. Observation on 02/13/23 at 8:08 P.M. revealed the blinds in Resident #4 and Resident 24's room were broken. Several pieces had broken…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-17 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably 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 record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure call lights remained in reach and were easily accessible for the residents. This affected two (Residents #1 and #24) of 24 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 11/13/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, osteoarthritis and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively impaired and was rarely understood and required extensive assistance of two staff members for mobility and transfers. Review of the care plan dated 02/13/23 revealed Resident #1 was at risk for falls with interventions to encourage and remind the resident to ask for assistance. Observation on 02/13/23 at 7:59 P.M. with Resident #1 revealed the resident was laying in bed. Resident #1's call light was observed to be under the bed and out of reach. Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #39 and #50 for anticoagulation drug use and Resident #52 for hospice services. This affected three (Resident #39, #50, and #52) of 16 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 06/17/22. Diagnoses included dementia and adult failure to thrive. Resident #52 passed away at the facility under hospice services on 12/21/22. Review of the physician order dated 09/23/22 revealed Resident #52 was admitted to hospice for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease with early onset. Review of the quarterly MDS assessments dated 09/23/22 and 12/06/22 revealed Resident #52 was coded as not receiving hospice services. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #109 on 02/15/23 at 11:14 A.M. verified she did not code Resident #52 as receiving hospice services on the quarterly MDS assessments dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2023-02-17 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the surety bond was sufficient to cover the balance of resident accounts. This had the potential to affect all 30 residents who had active fund accounts. The facility census was 50. Findings include Review of the Surety bond revealed a signature date of 05/26/21 and effective date of 06/01/21. The surety bond revealed a bond amount of $20,000. Review of the resident's fund account balances revealed a balance of $26,668.97 on 01/2022; a balance of $25,473.92 on 02/2022; a balance of $22,689.62 on 03/2022; a balance of $23,982.36 on 04/2022; a balance of $22,321.30 on 05/2022; a balance of $24,058.89 on 06/2022; a balance of $38,843.03 on 09/2022; a balance of $40,496.27 on 10/2022; a balance of $41,290.44 on 11/2022; a balance of $50,421.78 on 12/022; and a balance of $82,962.98 on 02/14/22. Review of the surety bond increase penalty rider with a signature date of 02/15/23 and effective date of 09/29/22. The surety bond revealed a bond increase to $100,000. Interview on 02/14/23 at 5:50 P.M. with Business…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS — 64 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| COLLERAN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| KRYSTOWSKI, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
| FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| ANDERSON, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2024 |
| OLSON, LYLE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $908K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 366303. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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.