Cortland Center
369 N High Street, Cortland, OH 44410 · For profit - Individual · 68 certified beds · (330) 638-4015 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 22% 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 |
| 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 | 0.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 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 | 0.6% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 41.5% | 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 | 1.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.3% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.3% | 94.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.6% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.9% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 41.0% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | 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.
53.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 60 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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 | 53.1%CMS range 43.2–60.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.4–15.4 | 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 | 53.3% | 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 | 65.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.5–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 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 68 beds and averages 61.0 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of camera video footage and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #41 had appropriate transmission-based precautions implemented. This affected one (Resident #41) out of three residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 62.Findings include:Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/25/25 with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, saddle embolus of pulmonary artery with acute cor pulmonale, urinary tract infection and extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) resistance.Review of Resident #41's physician orders dated 12/25/25 revealed Contact Precautions/Isolation related to ESBL, every day shift and night shift. The orders were active from 12/25/25 through 01/29/26.Review of Resident #41's care plan dated 12/25/25 through 01/28/26 did not reveal evidence Resident #41 had a care plan related to Contact…
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 · D2025-06-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate weights were obtained for Resident #31 and Resident #46. This affected two (Residents #31 and #46) of six residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 62. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including iron deficiency anemia, intellectual disabilities, gastro-esophageal reflux, deficiency of B vitamins, hyperlipidemia, [NAME] crisis, depression, dysphagia, and intestinal malabsorption. Review of Resident #31's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31's cognition was intact and was independent for eating. Resident #31 was 58 inches tall and weighed 115 pounds and had a weight loss of five percent in the last month that was not physician prescribed. Resident #31 was on a mechanically altered therapeutic diet. Review of the Dietary Progress Note dated 05/12/25 revealed…
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 · D2025-06-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #162 had a physician's order for oxygen. This affected one (Resident #162) out of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. This had the potential to affect 18 (Residents #2, #4, #7, #10, #12, #17, #18, #28, #32, #39, #40, #44, #46, #48, #53, #113, #166, and #168) identified by the facility on oxygen. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #162 revealed an admission date of 06/20/25 with diagnoses including fracture of right femur, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and altered mental status. Review of Pulmonologist #901's progress note dated 06/19/25 (while in hospital) revealed Pulmonologist #901 consulted due to pleural effusions and noted Resident #162's oxygen saturation level (percentage of oxygen in the blood) was 99 percent, and she had decreased breath sounds to her lung bases. He recommended oxygen but there was no specified route or…
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 before2025-05-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 record review, observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control precautions while providing wound care to Resident #50 who was in enhanced barrier precautions. This affected one Resident #50 but had the potential to affect all 29 residents who were ordered enhanced barrier precautions, Residents #5, #8, #9, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #23, #24, #30, #31, #33, #36, #37, #40, #44, #46, #50, #58, #61, #63, and #64. The facility census was 64. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 06/17/24. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and heart failure. Review of the care plan dated 06/17/24 revealed Resident #50 had impaired skin integrity on her left breast and left side of her neck. Interventions included providing wound care as ordered and enhanced barrier precautions. Review of the physician's order dated 09/16/24 revealed an order for…
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 before2024-02-06 · 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 observation, record review, facility policy review, and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #24's left foot was assessed after State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #610 bumped her foot on her bedroom doorframe, failed to complete documentation of the incident, and failed to ensure the physician was notified timely. This affected one resident (#24) of three residents reviewed for injuries. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 03/29/21 with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, and osteoarthritis. Review of the care plan dated 06/13/23 revealed Resident #24 had a self-care deficit and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. Interventions included custom power chair, mechanical lift with transfers, and assist with activities of daily living (ADL) including transfers. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed…
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 · D2023-12-11 · 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 observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) State Operations Manual, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was able to be transferred from his bed to a padded wheelchair using a mechanical lift when he requested the transfer. This affected one resident (#2) out of three residents reviewed for transfers. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/06/16 with diagnoses including morbid obesity due to excess calories, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #2's physician orders dated 06/20/23 revealed Resident #2's preference to be up from bed around 10:00 A.M. Review of Resident #2's care plan revised 07/17/23 included Resident #2 had a self-care deficit. Resident #2 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) and might require more or less assistance at times. Resident #2's…
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 before2023-12-11 · 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 interview, closed record review, review of the facility policy and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance the facility failed to ensure Resident #56's eye infection was treated while she resided in the facility. This affected one resident (#56) out of three residents reviewed for infections. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of Resident #56's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 10/07/23, and a re-entry date of 10/09/23. Resident #56's diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, and fracture of the left pubis. Resident #56 was discharged from the facility on 11/07/23. Review of Resident #56's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #56 required partial assistance from another person to complete bathing, dressing, using the toilet, eating, and walking from room to room. Resident #56 used a walker. Resident #56 had…
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 · D2023-12-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, closed record review, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to thoroughly document the appearance of Resident #56's bilateral heel deep tissue injuries (DTI). This affected one resident (#56) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer injuries. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of Resident #56's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 10/07/23, and a re-entry date of 10/09/23. Resident #56's diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, and fracture of the left pubis. Resident #56 was discharged from the facility on 11/07/23. Review of Resident #56's progress notes dated 10/09/23 through 11/07/23 did not reveal documentation related to the appearance of Resident #56's bilateral heel DTIs (purple or maroon localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue due to pressure and/or shear). Further review revealed the discharge instructions…
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 · F2023-07-24 · 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 interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure meals served looked appetizing and were served at palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen with the exception of Residents #1 and #10 who received no nutrition by mouth. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Interview on 07/17/23 at 2:08 P.M. with Resident #3 revealed hot foods were served cold upon meal service. Interview on 07/17/23 at 2:21 P.M. with Resident #45's sister revealed while at the facility, Resident #45 did not eat the food because Resident #45 said it did not taste good. Interview on 07/17/23 at 2:32 P.M. with Resident #19 revealed the food was overcooked, soggy and terrible. Observation of a test tray on 07/17/23 at 5:45 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #210 revealed the meal consisted of chicken tenders, french fries, zucchini and mandarin oranges. Temperatures were obtained with the chicken tenders revealing a temperature of 119 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the zucchini revealing a temperature of 126 degrees F. 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 · Dcited before2023-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was completed during medication administration including hand washing and wearing gloves. This affected three Residents (Residents #4, #32, and #101) out of seven residents administered medications. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Observations made on 07/19/23 from 7:59 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. of medication administration by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #223, LPN #234, and LPN #265 of 25 administrations made for seven residents (Residents #4, #14, #16, #32, #35, #101 and #103) revealed LPN #223 did not perform hand hygiene before or after administering medications to Resident #4. LPN #223 was observed dispensing medication into her bare hand then placing them into a medication cup, crushing them, placing in applesauce, and then administered the medications to Resident #4. Additional observation of LPN #223 revealed she did not perform hand hygiene before or after, or wear gloves while administering insulin to Resident #101. Observation during Medication…
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 · E2020-01-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to store foods brought in from outside the facility for the residents were under sanitary and safe conditions. This had the potential to affect all 38 residents ( #1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#10,#12,#13,#15,#16,#17,#18,#19,#20,#21,#22,#23,#24,#25,#26,#28,#29,#31,#32,#33,#34,#35,#37,#39,#41,#43,#44,#48,#203) and also affected Resident #204 residing on the Walnut and Maple units in the facility. The facility census was 56. Findings included: Interview was conducted from 9:23 A.M. to 9:25 A.M. on 01/23/20 with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #400 and STNA #401 who revealed if foods are brought in from family and visitors they are to write the resident's name on it, the date it was brought in and place the food in the refrigerator in the employee break room for those residents who resided on the Maple and Walnut units and for those residents who resided on the Cherry unit those items are stored in the kitchenette fridge on the Cherry unit.…
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 · D2020-01-23 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 received adequate pain management when routine pain medication was not given per a physician order. This affected one of three residents reviewed for pain (Resident #40). The facility census was 56. Findings included: Record review was conducted for Resident #40 who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including low back pain, neuropathy, systemic lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney disease and brain tumor. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact, needed extensive assistance by staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting and hygiene, was on a scheduled pain medication regimen and took opioids daily. The Plan of Care with a date initiated of 12/11/19 identified Resident #40 had a problem with generalized pain and listed interventions as administer pharmacological interventions as indicated per physician order, assess for verbal and nonverbal signs of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 2.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWBV HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/30/2019 |
| ROSTOM, SOHAIR | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| WILLIAMS, CHARLES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/28/2019 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| CEKANSKI, CYNTHIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/25/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 365814. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-26, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.