Wesley Glen Health Services Corp
5155 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43214 · Non profit - Corporation · 56 certified beds · (614) 888-7492 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- about 17% 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 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 | 9.3% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 0.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 4.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.7% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.8% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.0% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 35.5% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 139 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.2% 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 92 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 1.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.2%CMS range 53.0–67.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.4–14.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 52.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 47.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 54.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.7%CMS range 3.0–10.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.66 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 56 beds and averages 38.6 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.28 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.30 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.45 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.58 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.43 to 0.97 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-24 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palliative and safe food temperature. This had the potential to affect all 51 residents in the facility who the facility identified to receive food from the kitchen. Findings include: Interview on 04/21/25 at 1:35 P.M. with Resident #37 stated the food was not hot enough when it comes to his room. Interview on 04/23/25 at 2:19 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #321 stated Resident #37 has complained about the temperature of his food. Interview on 04/23/25 at 2:41 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #227 stated she receives complaints from residents about the temperature of food. CNA #227 stated she always warms up Resident #37's food. Interview on 04/23/25 at 4:37 P.M. with Dining Services Director (DSD) #276 stated hot food should be served to residents at a minimum of 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and cold food should be served to residents at 41 degrees F or below. Observation of the second floor tray line was made on 04/23/25 at 5:02 P.M. with Universal…
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 · F2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility did not maintain a clean sanitary kitchen, store food in a safe manner, and serve foods to the residents in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 51 residents in the facility who the facility identified receive food from the kitchen. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 04/21/25 at 10:53 A.M. with Dining Services Director (DSD) #276 of the second floor kitchen verified the interior ambient temperature of the sandwich cooler was 52 degrees Fahrenheit (F) . Observation and interview on 04/21/25 at 11:01 A.M. with DSD #276 and Dining Operations Manager (DOM) #303 confirmed the food located within the sandwich cooler on the second floor was above the appropriate food holding temperature. The sliced tomatoes were 47 degrees F and the hard boiled eggs were 46 degree F, sliced turkey 50 degrees F, chicken salad 46 degrees F, sliced American cheese was 46 degrees F and skim milk was 61 degrees F. Observation and interview on 04/22/25 at 4:46 P.M. with DSD #276 of the second floor…
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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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, staff interview, medical record review, review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, and facility policy review, the facility failed to appropriately disinfect equipment during a wound care treatment and ensure the resident's wound did not touch a dirty surface during the wound treatment. The facility also failed to ensure a resident who received medications intravenously and had a wound had enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) in place. This affected one (Resident #13) of one resident reviewed for wound care treatment and one (Resident #155) of one resident reviewed for EBP. The facility identified eight residents (#13, #28, #33, #103, #104, #105, #108 and #155) who received wound dressing changes on the second floor. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus type II, sternal fracture, multiple rib fractures and moderate protein malnutrition.…
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 · E2025-04-24 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the patient care equipment in safe operating condition. This had the potential to affect 27 residents who resided on the second floor and utilized the second floor spa. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Interview on 04/21/25 at 5:04 P.M. with Resident #103 revealed the grab bar in the spa room next to the toilet was shaky and coming off the wall. Observation and interview on 04/24/25 at 9:37 A.M. with Maintenance Technician (MT) #444 verified the second floor spa room grab bar next to the toilet was very loose. MT #444 stated he doesn't know how to fix it as they have tried all the fasteners they have. Interview on 04/24/25 at 1:49 P.M. with Maintenance Director #450 confirmed the grab bar was broken. Maintenance Director #450 stated if he was aware of an issue, it was fixed the same day or the next day as they were on call seven days a week.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's had care plans in place for pain management, enhanced barrier precautions, and an acute infection. This affected two (Residents #10 and #31) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included wedge compression fracture of second lumbar vertebra. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 had a significant cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10 current physician orders revealed the following medications order for low back pain: diclofenac sodium external gel one percent and Tylenol extra strength 500 milligrams (mg). Review of Resident #10's care plan revealed there was no care plan in place for pain management/treatment. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/24/25 at 3:31 P.M. confirmed Resident #10 did not have a pain care plan.…
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 · D2025-04-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for a resident who was at a high risk for falls. This affected one (Resident #40) of two residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, depression, frequent falls, and acute ischemic cerebrovascular accident. Review of the comprehensive care plan dated 11/03/24 revealed Resident #40 was at risk for falls. An intervention was added on 11/07/24 to apply a perimeter mattress to the resident's bed. Review of the fall risk assessments, dated 11/07/24 and 03/03/25 revealed Resident #40 was at a high risk for falls. Review of Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) [NAME], dated 04/23/25 revealed a perimeter mattress to bed was listed under the safety section. Observation on 04/23/25 at 7:30 A.M. revealed Resident #40 was sleeping in a low…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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, observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to honor the resident's food requests or preferences. This affected two (Resident #24 and #103) of three residents reviewed for food preferences. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 05/28/21. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities and type II diabetes mellitus. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 had severe cognitive impairment and required partial/moderate assistance for eating, Review of the care plan revealed Resident #24 was at risk for altered nutrition status due to a history of a feeding tube that has been removed and a mechanically altered diet. Resident #24 liked small individual bowls for her food. An intervention included foods in individual bowls. Observation on 04/23/25 at 6:34 P.M. revealed Resident #24's dinner revealed her food 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-09-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of the facility's policy, staff interviews, review of online resources at Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control protocols and wear the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in resident rooms that were in quarantine to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19. This affected one (Residents #160) of two residents reviewed for transmission based precautions (TBP). This had the potential to affect all 45 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #160 revealed an admission date of 09/02/22. Diagnoses included gangrene, kidney failure atrial fibrillation, and heart disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #160 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of one staff member for mobility. Review of the physician's orders 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 · D2022-09-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), review of the facility's policy, and medical record review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency, the Ohio Department of Health. This affected one (Resident #162) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the Resident #162's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/09/21. Resident #162 was admitted with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, dementia, and encephalopathy. Review of facility's SRI Control Number 218191 revealed the was submitted on 02/22/22 at 10:52 A.M. The SRI was related Resident #162 reporting an allegation of sexual abuse against STNA #66. Review of the facility's investigation related to SRI control number 218191, revealed at the end of day shift, Resident #162 was crying and reported to an state tested nursing aide (STNA) that a man had been trying to rape her in her room. She identified the man as STNA #66 . STNA #66 was sent home immediately. Interview on 09/08/22 at…
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 · D2022-09-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), staff interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation regarding a resident's allegation of sexual abuse. This affected one (Resident #162) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the Resident #162's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/09/21. Resident #162 was admitted with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, dementia, and encephalopathy. Review of facility's SRI Control Number 218191 revealed the was submitted on 02/22/22 at 10:52 A.M. The SRI involved Resident #162 reporting an allegation of sexual abuse against State Tested Nursing Aide (STNA) #66. On 02/21/22 at the end of day shift, Resident #162 was crying and reported to an STNA a man had been trying to rape her in her room. Review of facility's investigation of SRI Control Number 218191 revealed the facility interviewed four alert and oriented residents who resided on Resident #165's unit. The facility did not assess…
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 · D2022-09-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident, family, and staff interviews, review of the facility's policy, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as physician ordered. This affected two (Residents #149 and #159) of five residents reviewed for medication. The facility census was 45. Findings include 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #159 revealed an admission date of 09/04/22 at 5:54 P.M. Diagnoses included back pain, anxiety, and surgical stabilization of rib fractures for ribs five, six, seven, eight, and nine. Review of the hospital discharge referral documents dated 08/28/22 revealed Resident #159 had a historical diagnosis of back pain with multiple acute rib fractures requiring surgical revision and a diagnosis of anxiety. Resident was on several pain medications during her hospitalization and was weaning off intravenous (IV) Dilaudid (treats moderate to severe pain) and transitioning to oral Oxycodone (treats moderate to severe pain). Review of the hospital Discharge summary 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 · D2022-09-16 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer a pneumonia vaccine to a resident. This affected one (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 09/29/20. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, tropical spastic paraplegia, and cerebral infarction. Further record review for Resident #8 revealed a consent for the pneumonia vaccine dated 09/29/20 by Resident #8's Power of Attorney (POA). Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed there was no order to administer the pneumonia vaccine. Review of immunizations in Resident #8's electronic medical record revealed it was silent for documentation of the pneumonia vaccine. Interview on 09/12/22 at 12:44 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility offers the pneumonia vaccine to residents. The facility reviews the residents' records periodically for pneumonia vaccine status and offers the vaccine if indicated. Subsequent…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCDONALD, KENNETH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/01/2024 |
| ANDERSON, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| BOWERSOX, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| BRUESHABER, LARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| CONLON, CELIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| DEBENEDICTIS, LANCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| EAST, SANDRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| HILDAL, ROBYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| KAHLE, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| MCQUINN, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| PALMER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/1996 |
| PRESENT, PHILIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
| SHORT, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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. 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
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 365504. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-09, 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.